patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,246,160 comments by 14,878 users - Ceffer, The_Deplorable, WookieMan online now
CorporateClinton: Free Green Card for Every STEM Major
invite response
2016 Jun 28, 6:10pm 15,955 views 69 comments
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 69 of 69 Search these comments
anotheraccount
2016 Jul 2, 7:59am
Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.
It has. One major change since 2001 is that there is a lot more offshoring. For consulting IT projects in bay area, almost every company in bay area wants to have front men here with resources in India.
Strategist
2016 Jul 2, 8:51am
Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.
It has. One major change since 2001 is that there is a lot more offshoring. For consulting IT projects in bay area, almost every company in bay area wants to have front men here with resources in India.
Bob is being very naive. In a free market economy business owners and entrepreneurs will always find a way out to benefit themselves. We need to import their best, and give green cards to any foreign student who gets a Masters degree in STEM from an American University.
neplusultra57
2016 Jul 2, 9:30am
she refused to make any progressive commitments that would displease her donor base
They must be really pissed at her now that after meeting with Sanders the Dems' official platform "calls for........overturning Citizens United."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-take-step-left-new-platform-n602791
Trump won't lift even a rhetorical finger in this direction. Anti-establishment in spades he is.
Dan8267
2016 Jul 2, 11:49am
1. He’s wrecking the GOP as we speak, whether elected or not; it’s all he’s good for. You needn’t make a single sacrifice to achieve this.
The more damage the better. The more damage Trump does as president, the quicker the transition to a seventh party system will be, and more importantly, the better that new system will be. In contrast a Hillary presidency is a godsend to the Southern Strategy.
Sanders’ success to date demonstrates the need for reforming the Democratic Party and also the real possibility that it can be done by citizen money and not corporate money. Reform will come sooner if the corruption of corporate money in politics is reversed. Trump’s Court will prolong that corruption; Clinton’s Court will hasten its demise.
You have that reversed. Trump's victory over all well-established and well-funded Republican candidates sends a wake-up call to corporate money. A Hillary victory over Sanders or over Trump later would confirm that the current bribery system still works. Without all the money and the support of big media, Hillary would not have gotten half the pledged delegates she did and Bernie would already be the nominee.
he reforms brought about by a Democratic defeat will be blocked for a majority of the 40 years you invoke simply by the formative power over the Court that the next 4 years holds
You are assuming that a SCOTUS position will come up within the next four years -- the current vacate will be decided before the next president takes office -- and you are assuming that Hillary will appoint a better candidate than unpredictable, only fools believe what he says, Trump. All of history suggests that Hillary would appoint a terrible despot to the Supreme Court. Everything she was done in her very long career has been terrible for both human and civil rights.
If you are going to play the percentage, it makes sense to roll a random die than one that comes up all ones.
Why do you not even begin to consider the alternative of a Trump defeat and a disastrous Clinton administration?
That's already been tried. It's called the Obama administration. Hillary will be a continuation of the Bush/Obama line.
more interesting and nuanced diversions into the failure of Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism
To say that there are nuanced failures of Hilary Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism is like saying the Nazis had subtle failures to uphold Jewish orthodoxy principles. It's outlandish.
Hilary Clinton is as close to being a liberal, or even wanting to be one, as Hitler was to being an orthodox Jew. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make that person a liberal. Richard M. Nixon was more of a liberal than Hillary Clinton.
Thank you for mentioning A Seventh Party System. We'll get there sooner and in better shape if Sanders supporters make practical accommodations to the reality of our fucked up range of choices right now.
Sometimes you have to tear down a system before you can build a new one. The path to reform is not always straight and linear. Sometimes you have to go around an obstacle and that means going south before you can go further north. There is no reason to believe that things will get better under a Hillary Clinton administration and plenty of reasons to believe that such an administration will strengthen the power of those in the Status Quo.
And for those thinking that the first woman president would be a great achievement -- that's not so if the first woman president is someone we have to be ashamed of. It would set women back to put a terrible woman in office. Elizabeth Warren is the woman the Democratic Party should have been supporting for president. Hillary prevented Warren from even considering running for president despite the many pleading to Warren that she one.
On the other hand, Bernie would be both the first Jewish and the first non-Christian president, and he would be a good role model.
Dan8267
2016 Jul 2, 11:51am
Or as the Upton Sinclair once said, ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Climate change is the quintessential example of this principle.
Maybe you should have followed your dumb cousins to medical school
You're all screwed up, let me unscrew you
1. Thunderlips didn't make that comment, I did
2. There are 1.5 million people working in the field in 2014, with an expansion to 1.7 million in 2024. During that 10 year time span, there will be predicted openings of 484K. As of today, there are 1.5 million slots being occupied, however.
3. The US produces 55, 367 computer science grads, 10% of whom would need an H1-B after graduation to work. Even if you add in these ITT tech and vocational school types and people from mathematics and other engineering disciplines, that doesn't come close to 1.5 million slots that are currently occupied.
4. The SMART cousins are the ones who went to med school, as did I; the SLACKERS in every measurable metric outside of math and science courses went into engineering/comp sci.
There will be people with minor's in comp sci that end up in computer jobs. There will even be people who slide into computer jobs from an unrelated career, although not many any more
yes, my brother was a chemical engineering grad from rutgers who did comp sci as a minor and worked as a consultant/java developer for 6 years afterwards.
My wife has an MSEE, but worked in software, but that's because it was a path to a green card, which ultimately didn't matter after she got married.
Sure lot of people follow that path, but without importing, I can't agree that there wouldn't be a shortage.
If there were such a severe shortage then why haven't salaries gone up dramatically
Again, I NEVER said there was a SHORTAGE, I said that if there weren't people being imported that there would be a shortage. To reiterate, there is NO WAY in hell all the engineering, math and comp sci majors, coupled with the vo-tech ITT crowd, could fill the 1.5 million job slots occupied in 2014. Since you never provide any links of value for assertions that you make, this is your opportunity to actually do that for once.
Said another way, the REASON why there IS NOT a SHORTAGE is because of the H1-B program. The lack of a shortage due to the H1-B program is also WHY wages in that sector haven't gone up appreciably since 2001. If the H1-B program were completely eliminated and outsourcing couldn't occur, then IT salaries for software professionals would go up dramatically because there would be a shortage.
If you showed an interest the company sent you to an intense programming course and you picked it up from there.
Pretty sure those days are on their last legs. Why do they have to invest when they can get guys with masters degrees from US institutions to pick up the slack?; granted those guys often still need to work on their coding skills, presumably their logical capacity from years of training helps them to pick up programming quickly enough to produce in the workplace.
Not saying it's right or good, but the world has changed a bit since you were a young person.
Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.
As tr6 already mentioned, this is quite commonplace.
Strategist
2016 Jul 2, 1:25pm
If there were such a severe shortage then why haven't salaries gone up dramatically
Again, I NEVER said there was a SHORTAGE, I said that if there weren't people being imported that there would be a shortage.
Stop making sense, you will confuse Bob.
anotheraccount
2016 Jul 2, 1:59pm
Stop making sense, you will confuse Bob.
Bob, in general, moderate Republicans like Strategist and Logan are all for uncontrolled globalization and depression of wages as long as it does not affect their field. How about giving green cards to experienced real estate agents or whatever field Strategist works in.
We are also not importing doctors because AMA opposes it. We have the lowest number of doctors per 1000 people out of any developed nation.
We have the lowest number of doctors per 1000 people out of any developed nation.
25% of doctors in US are from foreign medical schools. This is because the US has kept medical school enrollment numbers artificially low for decades. That is not under the control of AMA, but rather the AAMC.
All AMA really has control of is the ICD-10 codes for reimbursement. The majority of Doctors in the US aren't even AMA members.
They are starting to increase med school enrollment, along with increasing number of schools, but it's only halfway effective, in that, it increases the number of graduates who are US schools, but doesn't increase the total number of doctors.
Also, the US doctor numbers aren't low in cities; the problem, as always is one of distribution. Having 40% of total residency positions in New York isn't beneficial to the areas that are underserved.
Increasingly, the role of doctors is being extended by NPs and PAs; Anesthesia services at the VA moving forward, will be done only by CRNAs. We're getting to the point that NP and PAs will be doing primary care because very few med grads want to go into primary care.
uncontrolled globalization and depression of wages as long as it does not affect their field
I agree that there is not much wage growth in the IT sector for the last 15+ years; that's why the STEM shortage myth is bogus.
But does globalization explain the unforgiving ageism in that sector? Even the H1-b people who've benefitted from globalism, for the most part are discouraging their kids from entering the field. Most of the type A personalities pursue medicine and the type B with no passion for business go for engineering/comp sci. The type A's who go for engineering, have ended up as entrepreneurs of the highest level (not Bill Gates) but 9 approaching 10 figure net worths
neplusultra57
2016 Jul 3, 7:09am
The more damage the better. The more damage Trump does as president, the quicker the transition to a seventh party system will be, and more importantly, the better that new system will be. In contrast a Hillary presidency is a godsend to the Southern Strategy.
Prove how President Trump will cause more GOP damage than candidate Trump. If you can make that case then you’re making an equal case for President Clinton to help your plan to damage the Democrats. You’re just guessing and risking the composition of the Court to do it. Bad risk assessment. But clearly you just want to punish Clinton more than the GOP. As to Southern Strategy, explain how President Clinton is a godsend to the Tea Party within a GOP that Trump has destroyed.
You have that reversed. Trump's victory over all well-established and well-funded Republican candidates sends a wake-up call to corporate money. A Hillary victory over Sanders or over Trump later would confirm that the current bribery system still works. Without all the money and the support of big media, Hillary would not have gotten half the pledged delegates she did and Bernie would already be the nominee.
No it is not reversed. Candidate Trump’s victory in the Primary merely leaves corporate money utterly in place and merely tells it to seek a different style of conservative Primary candidate: one that pays a better return. A Clinton Primary victory does confirm that she used the corrupt system effectively, but thanks to Sanders she has already assumed in her platform the overturning of Citizens United. You still have it reversed that a Trump victory in any race would even remotely alter this corrupt corporate condition. But you are willing to ignore this condition and don’t even attempt to hide your willingness to ignore it.
You are assuming that a SCOTUS position will come up within the next four years -- the current vacate will be decided before the next president takes office -- and you are assuming that Hillary will appoint a better candidate than unpredictable, only fools believe what he says, Trump. All of history suggests that Hillary would appoint a terrible despot to the Supreme Court. Everything she was done in her very long career has been terrible for both human and civil rights.
1. Scalia 2. Clarence Thomas (is speaking of retirement after the election). 3. Bader-Ginsberg (is 83 and has pancreatic cancer). “A terrible despot†from Clinton? Don’t be absurd. “All of history†suggests she appoints a left-of-center judge. You’re being bombastic. Besides, it doesn’t matter what sins she herself has committed, you have to focus on the tendencies of the judges she would nominate. That’s how reason approaches this topic.
If you are going to play the percentage, it makes sense to roll a random die than one that comes up all ones.
For those who can count the die is not all ones (see above).
That's already been tried. It's called the Obama administration. Hillary will be a continuation of the Bush/Obama line.
Then by your very own projection it will include more liberal judges on the Court, the destruction of the GOP by Trump during the election, and the downfall of the current system at the end of Clinton’s sole term. Mission Accomplished! Why do you refuse to see how illogical your opposition to that path is?
To say that there are nuanced failures of Hilary Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism is like saying the Nazis had subtle failures to uphold Jewish orthodoxy principles. It's outlandish.
Sigh. If this wearies you, or if you tire of struggling with your argument, just say so because we both have better things to do with our time on this planet. Must I apologize for presuming you understood simple English adjectives? "It's outlandish" that you failed to recognize that in my statement “nuanced†modified “diversionsâ€, whereas in your statement you used it to modify “failuresâ€. Yours was one of the most pointless and useless diversions ever witnessed.
Hilary Clinton is as close to being a liberal, or even wanting to be one, as Hitler was to being an orthodox Jew. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make that person a liberal. Richard M. Nixon was more of a liberal than Hillary Clinton.
Given the above, this is just a throwaway. Please stop.
There is no reason to believe that things will get better under a Hillary Clinton administration and plenty of reasons to believe that such an administration will strengthen the power of those in the Status Quo.
No reason other than the single reason I keep stating, you know, the one you keep ignoring, you know, the single most predicative condition of power retention by the Status Quo, you know, the one codified as unlawful evil by a conservative Court, that one, the one that is constantly passed over in more interesting and nuanced diversions into the failures of liberal purity in the candidate we're discussing, or at least one of us is discussing. Don't pause to consider the Court's potential impact on climate change legislation or on other environment protections. Perhaps pollution is not high on your list? Does damage need to come first? Bollocks.
And for those thinking that the first woman president would be a great achievement -- that's not so if the first woman president is someone we have to be ashamed of. It would set women back to put a terrible woman in office. Elizabeth Warren is the woman the Democratic Party should have been supporting for president. Hillary prevented Warren from even considering running for president despite the many pleading to Warren that she one.
On the other hand, Bernie would be both the first Jewish and the first non-Christian president, and he would be a good role model.
I tend to agree except for that obvious fact that no one made any decisions for Warren other than Warren herself. And I don't expect political executives to be my role models. That's why the "shame" of a President Trump is equal to the "shame" of a President Clinton and neither is the basis for rational judgement. Given that, it's obvious your willingness to trash a pivotal opportunity to lay the foundation for multiple decades of liberal reform in the Court is based solely on your own personal shame and not on a rational assessment of the situation. You should change your position. It's not rational.
You're all screwed up, let me unscrew you
1. Thunderlips didn't make that comment, I did
2. There are 1.5 million people working in the field in 2014, with an expansion to 1.7 million in 2024. During that 10 year time span, there will be predicted openings of 484K. As of today, there are 1.5 million slots being occupied, however.
3. The US produces 55, 367 computer science grads, 10% of whom would need an H1-B after graduation to work. Even if you add in these ITT tech and vocational school types and people from mathematics and other engineering disciplines, that doesn't come close to 1.5 million slots that are currently occupied.
Where are you getting 1.5 million slots currently occupied? Read your own posted link http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm There are 3.9 million currently employed in computer jobs with 1.1 million job openings through growth and retirements over the next 10 years. If there is a shortage of computer science grads it's because of H1B's that keep wages down. Let the salaries go up to their natural levels without H1B's undercutting them and many more students will major in computer science. Simple as that.
If companies want to use foreign programmers then let them relocate to foreign countries. They could cut corporate taxes a lot also. Yet it doesn't happen. IT companies shouldn't get to have all the advantages corporations have from being in the US then buy off congress to allow using much lower paid foreign workers. If H1B is such a great program for companies then let the H1B's change companies for better opportunities rather than being indentured servants. That would give all IT companies opportunities to fill positions they say they can't get US workers for, not just the companies with buddies in congress. Capitalism at work, what could be better?
We have the lowest number of doctors per 1000 people out of any developed nation.
25% of doctors in US are from foreign medical schools. This is because the US has kept medical school enrollment numbers artificially low for decades. That is not under the control of AMA, but rather the AAMC.
All AMA really has control of is the ICD-10 codes for reimbursement. The majority of Doctors in the US aren't even AMA members.
They are starting to increase med school enrollment, along with increasing number of schools, but it's only halfway effective, in that, it increases the number of graduates who are US schools, but doesn't increase the total number of doctors.
Also, the US doctor numbers aren't low in cities; the problem, as always is one of distribution. Having 40% of total residency positions in New York isn't beneficial to the areas that are underserved.
and why is there no increase in the total number of doctors? because congress capped the number of residency positions in 1997 and refuses to fund more ever since.
If you moved every residency position in NY to north dakota it wouldn't make one bit of difference. Doctors can work anywhere they want. Most don't want to live and work in the area's that are under served.
Dan8267
2016 Jul 4, 12:13am
Prove how President Trump will cause more GOP damage than candidate Trump.
And what would constitute proof that would satisfy you?
neplusultra57 says
If you can make that case then you’re making an equal case for President Clinton to help your plan to damage the Democrats.
Um, no. You don't get to assert causality.
You’re just guessing and risking the composition of the Court to do it. Bad risk assessment.
In your opinion. Hillary Clinton has a very long history on being terrible on human and civil rights including supporting torture. As bad as Trump is, he's nowhere near that level of evil.
But clearly you just want to punish Clinton more than the GOP.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about "punishing" Hillary Clinton whatever that means. I do care about the direction the Democratic Party will take in the rest of this century, and supporting the establishment at this critical juncture is not the way to force reform. If you cannot even discern my intent, which is clear, then how can you claim clairvoyance in regards to the effects of a Trump or Hillary administration?
You still have it reversed that a Trump victory in any race would even remotely alter this corrupt corporate condition.
I make no such claim, but Hillary is clearly in the hands of her donors whereas Trump is not. More importantly, Hillary losing, preferably to Sanders but to Trump if necessary, is the best attack on big money this election can make.
“A terrible despot†from Clinton? Don’t be absurd.
She voted for the USA Patriot Act, the single most vile act in U.S. history. She also voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the second most vile act in U.S. history. And yes, I'm including the Fugitive Slave Act in this analysis.
www.youtube.com/embed/zNvtKKM902w
For those who can count the die is not all ones (see above).
Obviously you have not been paying attention to the past 16 years if you think that.
Why do you refuse to see how illogical your opposition to that path is?
You are not simply making a compelling case to believe that the long road of history will be better with a Hillary administration than with a Trump one. That's on you.
I have stated my case, which you have not addressed. If you are incapable or unwilling to understand that a path to success is not necessarily a straight one, that's your failing, not mine.
It's outlandish" that you failed to recognize that in my statement
Honey, if what you wrote wasn't clear, that's also on you. I'm not going to get in a grammar argument with you. All I 'm going to say is that calling your opponent incapable of understanding nuance is a cop-out trope used when people cannot make any real counter-arguments.
Hilary Clinton is as close to being a liberal, or even wanting to be one, as Hitler was to being an orthodox Jew. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make that person a liberal. Richard M. Nixon was more of a liberal than Hillary Clinton.
Given the above, this is just a throwaway. Please stop.
I don't remember Nixon being pro-torture.
You should change your position.
I could never vote for someone who voted for the USA Patriot Act or the NDAA. Asking me to do that is like asking a Holocaust survivor to vote for Pat Buchanan. It's a moral impossibility.
If you don't want to see Trump elected, I suggest you focus your efforts into convincing the super delegates to nominate Sanders. Bernie brings in tens of millions of independent and centralist and young voters who will not vote for Hillary Clinton. That's your choice: Sanders or Trump. Don't blame us if Hillary loses to Sanders in the general election. Every single poll ever conducted shows Sanders slaughtering Trump in the general election. If the Hillary supporters want her so fucking bad that they are willing to risk a Trump presidency, then it's all their fault if that happens.
Where are you getting 1.5 million slots currently occupied? Read your own posted link http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm There are 3.9 million currently employed in computer jobs with 1.1 million job openings through growth and retirements over the next 10 years.
This is a strawman argument. When was I talking about all COMPUTER jobs??; I was talking about a SUBSET of COMPUTER jobs, known as SOFTWARE jobs. For some reason you are only fixated on right-hand column focused on job openings over the 10 years from 2014-2024.
If there is a shortage of computer science grads it's because of H1B's that keep wages down.
I agree, but thanks for acknowledging that I already said that. bob2356 says
Let the salaries go up to their natural levels without H1B's undercutting them and many more students will major in computer science
Prior to the H1-B program, that probably wasn't true. If you'd like to post a link to discuss this, be my guest. Although I'm pretty sure you won't since you almost never post links. The other problem with your theory is that there is this group of people in the United States, known as WOMEN who, despite all the coaxing and cajoling in the world, will never do comp sci. Best case scenario would be to poach people from other engineering disciplines, because no one else wants to do those courses, due to their difficulty and possibly due to the perceived lack of coolness etc. Even then, doubt you will fill the 1.5 million slots (hint: look at the left side of the table for once) that were filled in 2014.
If companies want to use foreign programmers then let them relocate to foreign countries
Are you serious? Each and every single fortune 500 company in the tech sector has offices in China and India. So yes, they are already doing this. Surprised your friends in software never mentioned this to you. If you're saying this is wrong, please provide a link.
They could cut corporate taxes a lot also
and they almost certainly have
If H1B is such a great program
Strawman; putting words in my mouth again huh? When did I say or imply "H1-B is a great program"? There are 1.5 million jobs in software CURRENTLY occupied (hint look at left side of chart I posted). All the homegrown talent, couldn't reach that number in this country. If you think it could, then please provide info to support your argument, not just baseless assertions.
If H1B is such a great program for companies then let the H1B's change companies for better opportunities rather than being indentured servants
H1-B is GREAT for companies and not so great for workers. Changing companies would be antithetical to their interests. If H1-b wasn't great for companies, then why the fuck do you think companies are lobbying for an expansion of the H1-B programs?
The indentured servants, very highly paid relative to wages in India or China, are often hungry for the opportunity to come to the United States and establish a better quality of life for themselves and their families.
That would give all IT companies opportunities to fill positions they say they can't get US workers for, not just the companies with buddies in congress. Capitalism at work, what could be better?
I hear you, but this is where 3rd party "consultancies" come in and bastardize the process by sponsoring underqualified folks for H1-b and pushing candidates to lie through their teeth about their qualifications to occupy a job position.
Problem with IT is the horrible ageism in the field. Capitalism or not, no other field is as unforgiving to people above the age of 40. Almost makes me thinks more people in IT should be unionized, a la the Dow Jones model.
Strategist
2016 Jul 4, 7:17am
Let the salaries go up to their natural levels without H1B's undercutting them and many more students will major in computer science. Simple as that.
And make our companies uncompetitive with the rest of the world? If anything we would lose jobs.
and why is there no increase in the total number of doctors? because congress capped the number of residency positions in 1997 and refuses to fund more ever since.
Correct. The point I was making, which clearly sailed over your head is that the US is trying to fix the problem by increasing slots in existing schools and establishing new medical schools, when the root problem is the lack of residency positions.bob2356 says
If you moved every residency position in NY to north dakota
Certainly North Dakota is an example of a place that could use more residencies. bob2356 says
Most don't want to live and work in the area's that are under served.
Aside from those who have roots in those regions, IMG will go there. Very few of my cousins, most of whom are above the age of 50, are city-slickers. Only the ones who went to med school in the US work in major metro areas.bob2356 says
Doctors can work anywhere they want.
with NY/NJ being the notable exceptions, Doctors usually work fairly close to where they did residency. I'll let you produce a link to show the opposite if you can.
neplusultra57
2016 Jul 6, 10:12pm
Prove how President Trump will cause more GOP damage than candidate Trump.
And what would constitute proof that would satisfy you?
Proof not needed. I’ll listen to your scenario how it would play out. You state it as if it were forgone fact. Let’s hear it.
If you can make that case then you’re making an equal case for President Clinton to help your plan to damage the Democrats.
Um, no. You don't get to assert causality.
Fine, no causation. Counter my position then, but without mealy-mouthed question begging. I’ll entertain your scenario how a President Clinton WITH an official platform espousing the overturning of Citizen’s United AND three liberal SCOTUS nominees will actually STALL reform of the Democratic Party. I predict you’ll beg the question, ignore the platform and the Court, and speak only of Administration. But, go ahead. It's all you've done so far, let's see if you can evolve.
You’re just guessing and risking the composition of the Court to do it. Bad risk assessment.
In your opinion. Hillary Clinton has a very long history on being terrible on human and civil rights including supporting torture. As bad as Trump is, he's nowhere near that level of evil.
Trump is on record calling for exceeding the tortures Clinton has advocated. He’s worse, but you don’t really care, do you? Besides, you're just repeating yourself.
But clearly you just want to punish Clinton more than the GOP.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about "punishing" Hillary Clinton whatever that means. I do care about the direction the Democratic Party will take in the rest of this century, and supporting the establishment at this critical juncture is not the way to force reform. If you cannot even discern my intent, which is clear, then how can you claim clairvoyance in regards to the effects of a Trump or Hillary administration?
The most persistent condition directing reform of the Democratic Party is the 40 year Court. Supporting that basis of reform is not supporting the “establishmentâ€. This is your perpetual strawman. I discern your intent but your statements about it are non-sensical. You ignore the difference between a four year ADMINISTRATION term and a forty year Court composition. Your time scale is all fucked up. But you don't care.
Hillary is clearly in the hands of her donors whereas Trump is not. More importantly, Hillary losing, preferably to Sanders but to Trump if necessary, is the best attack on big money this election can make.
Some common ground here: we agree Trump will do nothing to alter the corruption and we agree Clinton is in the hands of her donors. But Trump just hoovered up 51 million from donors so he’s getting there in a hurry. Just one point of clarification: How is “the best attack on big money this election can make†facilitated by Trump defeating ANY candidate officially opposed to Citizen’s United?
“A terrible despot†from Clinton? Don’t be absurd.
She voted for the USA Patriot Act, the single most vile act in U.S. history. She also voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the second most vile act in U.S. history. And yes, I'm including the Fugitive Slave Act in this analysis.
You do realize that SCOTUS noms don’t make those votes. So what will your position be when/if she publishes a list of liberal SCOTUS noms OF WHOM SHE HERSELF IS NOT ONE? Will you even pay attention? You are fond of specious Hitler references, so let me play, too. If during the height of WWII Hitler had offered to close the camps and send all the Jews to America would you have rejected the offer because it came from Hitler?
For those who can count the die is not all ones (see above).
Obviously you have not been paying attention to the past 16 years if you think that.
All you have to do is count to three and grasp that four is less than forty to realize that your response is bullshit. Three SCOTUS noms. THREE. Marriage equality. Pollution control. Equal protections. Voter registration law. Abortion rights. Climate change legislation. Citizens United. Regulation of capitalism. Single payer healthcare. Church and State. The Court will have its say regardless of whose DNA is in the back of Clinton’s throat. You’ve looked away from so many important issues you’re just staring into the corner at a picture of Clinton with the word “Hitler†written under it.
Why do you refuse to see how illogical your opposition to that path is?
You are not simply making a compelling case to believe that the long road of history will be better with a Hillary administration than with a Trump one. That's on you.
I have stated my case, which you have not addressed. If you are incapable or unwilling to understand that a path to success is not necessarily a straight one, that's your failing, not mine.
When it comes to reform it’s not the Administration that matters, man, it’s the Court. The Administration is the short road to GOP obstruction. The Administration has to contend with Congress. The Court paves the long forty year road to reform. I keep saying the word “Court†and you keep strawing up with “Administrationâ€. And you claim I’m not listening. You're deaf and blinkard.
Why do you refuse to see how illogical your opposition to that path is?
You are not simply making a compelling case to believe that the long road of history will be better with a Hillary administration than with a Trump one. That's on you.
I have stated my case, which you have not addressed. If you are incapable or unwilling to understand that a path to success is not necessarily a straight one, that's your failing, not mine.
Your case is: Hitler can’t close the camps because Hitler. Vote Stalin instead and roll the die which has a fictitious number on it. I have addressed everything you’ve said despite your non-responsive straw man diversions and bullshit question begging. Show me what I have not addressed.
It's outlandish" that you failed to recognize that in my statement
Honey, if what you wrote wasn't clear, that's also on you. I'm not going to get in a grammar argument with you. All I 'm going to say is that calling your opponent incapable of understanding nuance is a cop-out trope used when people cannot make any real counter-arguments.
Here is the statement that has you so flummoxed:
“5. Finally, you and thunderlips11 are appalled by lawful evil. You should be. The quintessential example of that is Court sanctioned, codified evil and injustice. You and other erstwhile liberals pass over this time and again for more interesting and nuanced diversions into the failure of Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism.â€
It's a simple statement. Any high school senior could negotiate it. You should learn to admit when you fucked up, there would be more dignity in it. Anyway, I'm done rubbing your nose in this one.
I don't remember Nixon being pro-torture.
No worries, you’ll remember Trump was and his court did nothing to stop him. That’s on you.
I could never vote for someone who voted for the USA Patriot Act or the NDAA.
Finally! After all that dipshit dancing, diversions and question begging and strawmen, here is your stricture. You're not about the best but most circuitous path to reform. You're not about how Trump will affect money in politics. You're not about general election polls and super delegates. It’s about your personal shame. The thing you don’t understand is that I find it perfectly understandable. So write in Sanders. It won’t prevent Trump from poisoning forty years of judicial decisions and sending the country back to the 1950s but at least you won’t have such shame on your hands.
If you don't want to see Trump elected, I suggest you focus your efforts into convincing the super delegates to nominate Sanders.
I have spoken to the only super delegate I have access to and done exactly as you suggest. Have you? Why not?
Bernie brings in tens of millions of independent and centralist and young voters who will not vote for Hillary Clinton. That's your choice: Sanders or Trump. Don't blame us if Hillary loses to Sanders in the general election.
Wrong, still wrong. The choice is between GENERAL ELECTION NOMINEES Trump and Clinton, you just don’t know it yet. Nothing would make me happier than to vote for general election nominee Sanders because his Court would resemble Clinton's. Are ya beginnin' to get the pictcha?
Every single poll ever conducted shows Sanders slaughtering Trump in the general election. If the Hillary supporters want her so fucking bad that they are willing to risk a Trump presidency, then it's all their fault if that happens.
Clearly you’re more than willing to risk it simply because you hate her so fucking bad. If you write in Sanders you can’t lose. But you won’t, will you? Your shame paralyzes you.
zzyzzx
2016 Jul 7, 4:57am
And make our companies uncompetitive with the rest of the world? If anything we would lose jobs.
Tell that to the ex workers at Disney and various utilities that got replaced with H1B's.
This is a strawman argument. When was I talking about all COMPUTER jobs??; I was talking about a SUBSET of COMPUTER jobs, known as SOFTWARE jobs. For some reason you are only fixated on right-hand column focused on job openings over the 10 years from 2014-2024.
This doesn't make any sense. Are all the 1.5 people currently employed as in SOFTWARE jobs going to disappear POOF one day and need to be replaced in mass? Why do we need to fill the jobs already filled again? I'm fixated on the right hand column because that's the number of jobs that are going to need to be filled. As you said 484k jobs over the next 10 years need to be filled with 55k a year (550k total) comp sci graduates. That's without the trade schools, associates degrees, poaching other fields or whatever. Where is the future shortfall? Why do I need to post links when I'm taking the data off the links you already posted?
Are you trying to say the H1B's
MMR says
Prior to the H1-B program, that probably wasn't true. If you'd like to post a link to discuss this, be my guest. Although I'm pretty sure you won't since you almost never post links. The other problem with your theory is that there is this group of people in the United States, known as WOMEN who, despite all the coaxing and cajoling in the world, will never do comp sci.
Since I have worked in programming since the 70's and have seen it day to day I am not doing the heavy lifting on researching this, you look it up. Like engineering comp sci has seen a number of booms and busts. When it's a hot field the number of comp sci grads goes up, when it's not they go down. In the late 80's early 90's you couldn't pay someone to take comp sci, the job market sucked. Then internet boom hit and you couldn't get into a comp sci program for blood or money. Dot com bust same thing. Now the number of com sci is exploding again. http://www.bu.edu/today/2016/computer-science-enrollment-increasing/
Never do comp sci? Never? I'm screwed up? How about 20%. That's down from 37% 20 years ago but still a significant number. Here is you precious link. http://readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-why-so-few/
Dan8267
2016 Jul 7, 1:06pm
Proof not needed. I’ll listen to your scenario how it would play out.
If Clinton is elected, it will be a continuation of the Bush, Cheney, and Obama policies. The GOP will obstruct any legislation that isn't grossly in favor of the evils you have listed including violations of civil and human rights, abandonment of environmental protection, and structuring the law to consolidate even more wealth in the hands of the 0.01% at the expense of the ever-shrinking middle class. This is already going on, and Clinton will simply continue it. She is even more immoral and bought than Obama is.
The GOP will be able to blame all the bad consequences of the policies they pass on the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party. Large portions of the population including the critical centralists, moderates, and independents will accept this explanation and vote for Republican candidates, particularly pro-big-business ones and pro-war ones.
In contrast under a Trump presidency, the GOP will block most of Trump's policies as
1. His policies go against their financial interests and the interests of their big-business backers.
2. The policies they might like, such as banning Muslims from entry, they cannot vote for without risking their own positions by looking like blatant racists or idiots.
Ultimately this will weaken the GOP as
1. Every attack the conservative media makes against Trump will be an attack on the Republican Party and the conservative base.
2. The conservative base will like Fox News much less as it criticizes their beloved Trump.
3. Fox News will not be able to ignore Trump's policies for doing so will have a financial impact on people like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch. Fox News will be stuck between a rock and a hard place for the entire Trump presidency.
4. The tension between the godless capitalist republicans and the Jesus freaks conservative base will grow and strain as Trump continues to drive a wedge between the two as he has done throughout his campaign.
5. The unholy union consummated in Nixon's Southern Strategy will end leaving the Republicans will too few voters to maintain seats in the House and Senate. Neither faction will be able to garner the support of minorities. The conservative base is racist and won't want minorities in their camp as their whole motivation is keeping America white and Christian. The business camp's economic policies will alienate minorities as well, particularly the policies of removing economic opportunity and anti-poverty programs.
You state it as if it were forgone fact.
I never state any prediction of the future as a forgone fact. One makes educated guesses based on all available data to figure out the most likely consequences of events. This does not imply absolute certainty, but if that's what you want, you're out of luck. You will never have absolute certainty in predicting the results of decisions, but it would be extremely foolish to stop making educated guesses.
In fact, it would be impossible to not act on reasonable expectations. For example, when you interview for more than one job and have the option of choosing, you base your decision not only on the salary offered but also your expectation of job stability, job enjoyment, the ability to fit in the company's culture, and other factors that you can only make educated guesses about.
I don't resume to have a large degree of confidence in what Trump will do. He's largely unpredictable. But like Susan Sarandon I think that Clinton, whose track record is well-establish and thus is more predictable, is more dangerous than Trump.
She says Clinton is "more dangerous" than Trump because Trump is simply offering up fantasies that racists in this country want to hear, fantasies that Sarandon believes he has no intention of trying to make real.
Sarandon nails Trump. He's a con man who's entire business history has been based on the tactic of telling his marks or "clients" whatever he thinks they want to hear and using bait'n'switch on them. His entire campaign has followed this strategy. None of the outlandish things he proposed like banning Muslims will be enacted, and it is highly unlikely that Trump will even try to get such things enacted. The same is true for
Trump is on record calling for exceeding the tortures Clinton has advocated. He’s worse, but you don’t really care, do you?
Trump talks about torture, but Clinton has enacted torture and defended its practice in her actions. Actions speak louder than words.
Furthermore, it is precisely because I care about torture that I cannot vote for Clinton. If you don't understand this, then you clearly don't understand enough about me or my position to make such ridiculous statements about what my thinking is.
I’ll entertain your scenario how a President Clinton WITH an official platform espousing the overturning of Citizen’s United AND three liberal SCOTUS nominees will actually STALL reform of the Democratic Party.
Trusting Clinton's campaign promises is as foolish as trusting Trumps. There is nothing in Hillary Clinton's entire life history that suggests she would appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. In fact, her entire life history, especially the past 16 years, suggests that she would appoint people who undermine liberty to the Supreme Court. She loves strong and unaccountable executive power and her polices precisely rely upon that.
If you think that Hilary Clinton is even remotely liberal in her policies, then you don't understand what a liberal is. Trump, in contrast, despite his idiotic conservative rhetoric has a history of being at least moderately liberal. That doesn't make him a good president candidate, but he's far less evil than Clinton on social issues, civil rights, and human rights.
As for campaign finance reform, it is utterly inconceivable that Clinton would do anything to promote such reform or overturn Citizen's United as the only reason she's the "presumptive" Democratic nominee is that she massively outspent Sanders using big business money and she's doing the exact same thing to counter Trump. She's spending 15 times as much as him on the campaign and that mostly comes from big business including Wall Street.
In contrast, Trump might -- although I doubt it -- try to limit campaign funds in order to protect his ass in the 2020 election. Overturning Citizen's United is in Trump's own interest, and that's something he's always interested in.
Marriage equality. Pollution control. Equal protections. Voter registration law. Abortion rights. Climate change legislation. Citizens United. Regulation of capitalism. Single payer healthcare. Church and State.
There is no reason to believe that Clinton will be on the progressive or liberal side of any of those issues. She was strongly anti-marriage-equality until the tide of popular opinion turned. She has been terrible on environmental issues. As a lawyer, she didn't even think defendants should be allowed to have a lawyer present while being interrogated. She has completely failed to make any progress in health care reform. The ACA is basically the Republican counter-plan to her plan from the 1990s. And she has a lifetime of experience in opposing even the most basic and sensible regulation of capitalism. Put simply, the actual record of her votes and policies are in direct and unresolvable conflict with your image of her.
Hillary Clinton on Marriage Equality
www.youtube.com/embed/fZkK2_6H9MM
www.youtube.com/embed/6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on regulation of capitalism
www.youtube.com/embed/jP_yRZkU3d0
www.youtube.com/embed/hbWzE4JhQJY
As senator Clinton the pressures are very different. - Elizabeth Warren
She worries about them (finance firms) as a constituency. - Elizabeth Warren
How much more is the pressure going to be as president Clinton? How much more pressure is going to come from those big business constituencies? Well, the Young Turks answers that question.
www.youtube.com/embed/GZ9uzpHJ0yg
Wall Street is Hillary Clinton's base.
Oh, and the Young Turks' hypothesis is testable. If Clinton does not pick Warren as her running mate, the statements in the above video are confirmed. What to make any bets?
As for Hillary on the environment, a perfect example is her tenure as a senator in which she voted against clean groundwater. too keep her big polluter donors happy.
Hillary Clinton, who has been an intense critic of the lead-contaminated water crisis in Flint, Michigan, voted against a bill to prevent groundwater pollution when she was representing New York in the U.S. Senate.
Facing reports that a controversial fuel additive was contaminating water supplies across America, Clinton as a senator in 2005 opposed a bipartisan measure to ban the chemical–even though Bill Clinton’s Environmental Protection Agency had first proposed such a prohibition. At roughly the same time, one major company producing the chemical also tried to use provisions in a trade deal backed by Hillary Clinton to force local governments in the United States to let it continue selling the toxic compound. At issue was the chemical known as methyl tertiary butyl ether–or MTBE. Though the compound makes fuel burn cleaner, by the end of the 1990s, scientists began detecting an increasing amount of the potential carcinogen in groundwater supplies.
You do realize that SCOTUS noms don’t make those votes.
All three branches are important, and Clinton's history demonstrates that she would put terribly anti-liberty people on the Supreme Court whereas Trump is highly unlikely to.
If during the height of WWII Hitler had offered to close the camps and send all the Jews to America would you have rejected the offer because it came from Hitler?
Only a fool trusts a promise from Hitler or any politician. I would not trust Hitler to make good on his promise. Similarly Obama promised to close Gitmo as soon as he was elected and he hasn't. It's been 16 years. Hillary has been caught in many, many lies -- and yes, all politicians lie to a great degree -- so trusting her promises is just plain stupid. I base my opinion of Clinton on her actions, not her promises. She's been in politics her entire life. She's not an unknown quantity like Trump. We absolutely can tell what her future behavior will be like -- maybe not 100%, but close -- based on four decades of well-documented history.
You should not be judging Clinton on what she's now promising but rather on what she has done. There is no lack of knowledge here that requires guessing. She has a very long and detailed history that's all public record and it's trivially easy to view that record now that everything is only an HTTP request away. If you like what she has done (being a hawk in every war, promoting torture, deregulating the financial industry, opposing environmental protections, opposing government transparency, and supporting unaccountable and absolute executive power) then by all means vote for her. But don't pretend that she's not all these things or that she's fighting against all those things. Her campaign promises mean nothing. Her voting record means everything.
No worries, you’ll remember Trump was and his court did nothing to stop him. That’s on you.
In case you haven't realized already, I question your assumption that Clinton will put better people on the Supreme Court than Trump. Trump is unpredictable, but Clinton is a very well-known quantity and her history demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that her appointments will be very evil and evil in the precise way that furthers every fear you've presented.
Trump is a minor evil, a charlatan and an idiot. Hillary Clinton is a major evil, systematic and deliberate. That makes her far more dangerous. Perhaps if Ted Cruz won the republican nomination, you'd have a compelling case, as Cruz was an ideologue and thus far more dangerous than Trump. But Cruz did not win the nomination, and Hillary is an ideologue as well, at least when it comes to executive power.
You ignore the difference between a four year ADMINISTRATION term and a forty year Court composition. Your time scale is all fucked up. But you don't care.
Again, Clinton is almost certainly going to be worse than Trump for the Supreme Court. But even more importantly, Clinton is worse than Trump for the seventh party system and the next 40 years of the Democratic Party, and yes, that counts more than even the Supreme Court. It's better for problems to be prevented in the legislative branch than to rely on the Supreme Court hearing an issue. The Supreme Court hears only a tiny, tiny fraction of the issues created by legislation and the use of executive power. For every issue that makes it to the Supreme Court there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of issues settled, including the Constitutionality of acts, by lower courts. The legislative branch is more important for preventing injustices.
When it comes to reform it’s not the Administration that matters, man, it’s the Court.
There you are wrong. The legislative branch is most important. This branch has the greatest power to make changes. For example, the Civil Rights Act. And this is another reason why the super delegates should nominate Bernie Sanders. If they do, the Democratic Party will get far more senate and house seats. If they don't, the GOP will be able to continue to obstruct all Democratic policies.
Bernie brings in tens of millions of independent and centralist and young voters who will not vote for Hillary Clinton. That's your choice: Sanders or Trump. Don't blame us if Hillary loses to Sanders in the general election.
Wrong, still wrong. The choice is between GENERAL ELECTION NOMINEES Trump and Clinton, you just don’t know it yet.
Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee. She might be once the convention is held, but she is not right now and Bernie Sanders can absolutely be nominated according to the convention rules. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand how the primary election works. I have explained it many times. See my past threads or Google it.
Nothing would make me happier than to vote for general election nominee Sanders because his Court would resemble Clinton's.
I find that extremely hard to believe. As the Young Turks video pointed out, Clinton was extremely reluctant to make the concessions forced on her by the Bernie camp. Her politics and world view are nothing like Bernie's. In fact, Clinton's world view is much more like George W. Bush's than it is like either Bernie's or Trump's.
Clearly you’re more than willing to risk it simply because you hate her so fucking bad.
Unlike you, I do not base my political decisions on emotion but rather reason. The fact that you think my decisions are based on "hate" or any other emotion demonstrates unequivocally that you are projecting your values and world view onto me. You base your decisions on your emotional reactions, for example your hatred of Trump, and therefore cannot image that other people do not do the same. This is why I'm always accused of being a conservative by ignorant leftists and a leftist by bigoted conservatives. Most Americans have a polarized view of politics and think that people who don't agree with what they say must be their polar opposite and must be acting on emotions like they are.
I consider Hillary Clinton to be immoral, unethical, and unfit for the presidency. I think the exact same thing of Trump. Neither is an emotional assessment. Just because an opinion or principle is strongly upheld, does not mean the motive is emotional. It is not hate. It is cold, hard, machine logic. If you want to accuse me of any flaw, accuse me of being too distant. I don't consider that a flaw, but it's the only straw you'll be able to grasp.
Dan8267
2016 Jul 7, 2:50pm
This thread isn't about goat sex, so you can go away CIC. We're just talking boring politics.
neplusultra57
2016 Jul 8, 10:35pm
I disagree with your prediction. All the breakage in the GOP you can hope for is happening right now, before the election, and there already are signs that Trump is letting himself be managed in order to glean money from the party and that the relationship with Fox is on the mend. He’ll hold out, and bluster, much the same way Sanders has, but once he’s the nominee he will stop bullying the GOP retards who didn’t suck him off during the primary. The party will coalesce around him and there will be no more conflict and he will go solely after the Scarlett Whore. The same is true for the Dems: Sanders will have leveraged his platform as much as possible and will endorse Clinton.
At that point NEITHER PARTY WILL EVEN PRETEND TO HAVE LEARNED THEIR LESSONS.
Then the GOP will resume their long game. Because, thanks to your endorsement, they will own the Court, (have you seen his list and how jizzingly happy the wingnuts are? http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/19/trumps-scotus-list-gives-america-clear-choice/) and the gerrymandering that has established the Tea Party power to choose their voters will persist. A Trump victory and a Trump Court will deliver us the Tea Party for a generation. The media conflict you see right now will dissolve as the GOP gets the WH back and goes powermad. For the first time in eight years the GOP Congress will stop sitting on its hands. They'll accept new trade agreements in exchange for tax cuts on elites and corporations. Immigration will again go on the back burner due to the new wars we are in. The wall will be stalled in budget debate. The money will roll in from Wall Street. The citizen and State groups that petition the Court will lead in time to the repeal of recent liberal victories. At the very most, if Trump tries to negotiate trade agreements they don’t like or institute immigration limits that cut off the slave labor they crave they’ll let the Democrats kill it and take the blame. In order to prevent the disastrous budgets and spending priorities that Republicans are historically known to favor, the Democrats in the Senate will have to play the role of obstructionists. They’re not anywhere near as good at that as the GOP.
You do realize that SCOTUS noms don’t make those votes.
All three branches are important, and Clinton's history demonstrates that she would put terribly anti-liberty people on the Supreme Court whereas Trump is highly unlikely to.
You didn't read his list did you? If you "think the exact same thing" of Trump that you do of Clinton then either they're both liars or they are both truth tellers. Here's her statements about her list:
If you truly think Clinton will nominate a non-pro-choice judge you are just insane. Full stop.
No worries, you’ll remember Trump was and his court did nothing to stop him. That’s on you.
In case you haven't realized already, I question your assumption that Clinton will put better people on the Supreme Court than Trump. Trump is unpredictable, but Clinton is a very well-known quantity and her history demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that her appointments will be very evil and evil in the precise way that furthers every fear you've presented.
But it's not just a matter of degree is it? There's a qualitative difference implicit in your assessment of their histories. You give Trump a pass for never having voted for torture, so apparently not having done something he didn't have the power to do is a plus in your assessment. Trump is unpredictable....and then you go on to predict him.....based on.....not having done something he couldn't have done in the first place. OK. You call him an evil and then disbelieve him when he says evil things. He publishes a list of conservatives and you say "No, I don't believe it." That's strange.
Clinton, on the other hand, not having done something she couldn't have done is bound, in your mind, to do something equal to the most evil deeds of her past. Well, OK. You can call that equal treatment by cold logic, but I don't.
By the way, the Young Turks vid is easily believable but it would be nice if it had just the slightest bit of substance to its attribution. usually that sort of tactic is used by the wingnuts.
Y
2016 Jul 9, 4:31am
Merica is technically bankrupt due to socialist policies that by definition spend more than they collect. Who better to handle this situation than someone who has stared bankruptcy in the eye numerous times and sent it straight to hell.
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 69 of 69 Search these comments
Because Tech Salaries are just exploding for Computer Programmer I jobs, positions going unfilled, and what native-born state university grads need is lower salaries and diluted opportunities..
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2016/06/28/clinton-tech-plan-reads-like-silicon-valley-wish-list/86474144/
#CorporateClinton #CrookedHillary