- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,821
- Reactions
- 13,868
I did, and it doesn't make any more sense than the first time.
Trump 2.0
- Thread starter Knobby22
- Start date
-
- Tags
- donald trump
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,589
- Reactions
- 14,324
I see, instructive.I did, and it doesn't make any more sense than the first time.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,470
- Reactions
- 8,816
Keep in mind that a Fox News host recently said homeless people should be given the lethal injection and nothing happened to him, the FCC didn’t care. This is about politics. If Trump is going to only crack down on people who don’t support him politically, that’s not a great thing, wouldn’t you agree?
- Joined
- 19 February 2016
- Posts
- 1,065
- Reactions
- 1,711
What does that have to do with my comment?
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,470
- Reactions
- 8,816
Your comment was suggesting that it was ok for Jimmy Kimmel to be targeted because he made jokes about Trump and the right wingers, I was pointing out that the more right wing channels are far more aggressive and one sided than Kimmel and say atrocious things Yet go unpunished by the FCC.
Craton
Mostly passive, contrarian.
- Joined
- 6 February 2013
- Posts
- 1,904
- Reactions
- 2,917
This is just gaslighting.
Where's the context?
Floyd was just one of the many "nonwhite" Americans killed by LEO's across the good ol'd US of A.
BLM is just as important as the Me Too movement but of course, one white christian MAGA sycophant's life far outweighs and trumps above all else.
If the number of "Charlie Kirk's" were killed as was the same as those of American nonwhites, well one can only imagine that peaceful vigils would be a thing of the past.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,429
- Reactions
- 14,545
The only problem with the statement above is that according to ABC News ,
The problem about black deaths is not the US right, or the Police, or the likes of Charlie Kirk, its other Black Americans.
Mick
Craton
Mostly passive, contrarian.
- Joined
- 6 February 2013
- Posts
- 1,904
- Reactions
- 2,917
Fair enough @mullokintyre
To be clear, I'm not condoning Kirk's assassination. My point, comparing what led to BLM and the outrage as per that meme comparing to Kirk's vigil is just gaslighting which, IMHO, Kirk was very good at.
To be clear, I'm not condoning Kirk's assassination. My point, comparing what led to BLM and the outrage as per that meme comparing to Kirk's vigil is just gaslighting which, IMHO, Kirk was very good at.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,470
- Reactions
- 8,816
You are missing the point, Read those statistics again,
Eg 90% of black deaths come from blacks, and 14% of white deaths come from blacks.
That means most white deaths are from whites and most black deaths are from blacks. That’s to be expected, because most killings happen to those you love and work around.
But the point of the BLM movement is about police killings, and the fact that when it comes to interactions with the police. Blacks are treated much more harshly, and violently than the average white person. Not because the police officer is openly racist, (but tbh at happens too) but because there seems to be an underlying prejudice where black men are being assumed to be aggressive and not given the same benefits of the doubt.
- Joined
- 17 April 2025
- Posts
- 236
- Reactions
- 399
No, it's a meme based on reality.
A criminal thief high on fentanyl is a false equivalent to a Christian family man working to engage in free debate.
Political scam movements are not morally superior, the money dried up on these movements a long time ago.
Your racist fantasies are not arguments.
Did you just comment to be offensive and get some attention?
- Joined
- 17 April 2025
- Posts
- 236
- Reactions
- 399
Yes, you are, that is your point. You are dehumanising Charlie Kirk to make his assassination appear to be ok thing to happen.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,589
- Reactions
- 14,324
To paraphrase Douglas Murray recently, a flare has been shot into the sky so now we cas see where everyone is.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,429
- Reactions
- 14,545
BLM is just another vehicle for someone to scam someone else.
In the Uk From BBC News
And also in the US from Boston herald
Mick
In the Uk From BBC News
And also in the US from Boston herald
Mick
- Joined
- 17 April 2025
- Posts
- 236
- Reactions
- 399
To summarise Buy Large Mansions.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,470
- Reactions
- 8,816
I am sure al sorts of causes have been used by scammers, even Aussie bush fires have scammers trying to steal donations, but that of course is not evidence that the underlying cause is not genuine, and there aren’t bush fire victims needing support. It just means scammers exist that will take advantage of any situation.
I mean if you travel in Europe you get approached a lot by scammers asking for donations to help the blind, but it would be silly to assume that because of these scams that blind people aren’t really in need of help.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,821
- Reactions
- 13,868
Yes, plenty of fake collectors for genuine causes.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,920
- Reactions
- 26,745
Trump will impose a $150,000 annual fee for H-1B visas. Here's what it means
Some hope this visa price hike will see the US tech industry prioritise American workers. Others argue it'll dissuade the "world's smartest talent" from choosing to work in the US.
www.abc.net.au
The H-1B visa requires at least a bachelor's degree and is principally used for high-skilled jobs that tech companies can struggle to fill.
Critics of the program, including many US tech workers, argue it allows firms to suppress wages and sideline Americans who could do the jobs.
They say many overseas workers are willing to work for as little as $US60,000 annually, well below the $US100,000-plus salaries typically paid to US teh workers.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick hopes the price hike will dissuade tech companies from preferencing overseas workers over Americans.
"If you're going to train people, you're going to train Americans. Stop bringing in people to take our jobs," he told reporters.
"If you have a very sophisticated engineer and you want to bring them in ... then you can pay $US100,000 a year for your H-1B visa."
He said the change will likely result in far fewer H-1B visas than the 85,000 annual cap allows because "it's just not economic anymore".
India will likely be most impacted by this price increase, accounting for 71 per cent of approved beneficiaries of H-1B visas last year.
China was a distant second at 11.7 per cent, according to government data.
Tech heavyweights may also feel the pinch.
This year, Amazon was by far the top recipient of H-1B visas with more than 10,000 awarded, followed by Tata Consultancy, Microsoft, Apple and Google.
- Joined
- 19 February 2016
- Posts
- 1,065
- Reactions
- 1,711
Having worked on a visa, and hired others on visas I think this is a great idea. There needs to be a genuine reason for a visa. There is no shortage of skilled workers - there is a shortage of companies willing to pay market value.
Trump will impose a $150,000 annual fee for H-1B visas. Here's what it means
Some hope this visa price hike will see the US tech industry prioritise American workers. Others argue it'll dissuade the "world's smartest talent" from choosing to work in the US.
The H-1B visa requires at least a bachelor's degree and is principally used for high-skilled jobs that tech companies can struggle to fill.
Critics of the program, including many US tech workers, argue it allows firms to suppress wages and sideline Americans who could do the jobs.
They say many overseas workers are willing to work for as little as $US60,000 annually, well below the $US100,000-plus salaries typically paid to US teh workers.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick hopes the price hike will dissuade tech companies from preferencing overseas workers over Americans.
"If you're going to train people, you're going to train Americans. Stop bringing in people to take our jobs," he told reporters.
"If you have a very sophisticated engineer and you want to bring them in ... then you can pay $US100,000 a year for your H-1B visa."
He said the change will likely result in far fewer H-1B visas than the 85,000 annual cap allows because "it's just not economic anymore".
India will likely be most impacted by this price increase, accounting for 71 per cent of approved beneficiaries of H-1B visas last year.
China was a distant second at 11.7 per cent, according to government data.
Tech heavyweights may also feel the pinch.
This year, Amazon was by far the top recipient of H-1B visas with more than 10,000 awarded, followed by Tata Consultancy, Microsoft, Apple and Google.
Take Australia, you might be looking for a mechanical engineer - you pull salary data and see a mechanical engineer goes for $75k a year. But you're in WA and you pay your existing mechanical engineers $90k a year. So - you reclassify your engineers as "Lead" or "Senior" or "Specialist" or "Superintendent" or "Advisor" or "Principal" or whatever other term you want - then go advertise for a $75k a year mechanical engineer knowing you won't get many applicants except foreigners. Now go hire that foreigner - who will be more than happy to accept that kind of pay. You've now managed to supress your wages and depending on how the foreigner goes - you can 'restructure' and 'eliminate' those expensive 'senior' (Australian) roles on $90k.
Trump has probably done these exact same things in his company - so I'd bet he knows all the ways to abuse and fix the system!
Until now, H-1B visas have carried various administrative fees totalling around $1,500.
I'm pretty shocked the fee is that low.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,328
- Reactions
- 8,347
What has Trump done in 8 months that has overturned all the "norms" of the US system of Government ?
Long analysis here but it does go into details of how vulnerable the US is to a bad faith President.
When if ever will Conservatives recognise the danger Trump poses to a representative Democratic political system in the USA ?
Sep 17, 2025
There oughta be a law.
Seriously, there ought to be a law. Because the ones we have are not up to the task of reining in a bad-faith actor in the Oval Office.
Time and again in just eight months back in office, Donald Trump has advanced norm-busting assertions of presidential power far beyond anything ever attempted—or even dreamed of—by his predecessors. Trump has declared national emergencies purporting to justify hundreds of questionable actions that would typically require congressional approval or lengthy regulatory review. Those actions include the imposition of tariffs;
sending the military to Los Angeles;
federalizing the Washington, D.C. police force;
militarizing the southern border;
ending birthright citizenship;
deporting foreign students and scholars;
targeting colleges, universities and law firms;
undermining the independence of administrative agencies;
and dismantling (among other entities) the Department of Education.1
As tempting as it may be to call these actions “blatantly illegal,” the truth is actually worse. The constitutional and statutory ambiguities Trump is attempting to exploit really do exist. Indeed, strategic ambiguity has until recently generally been viewed as a feature, not a bug, of our legal system.
Our Constitution is framed in generalized language, with phrases like “due process” and “equal protection” left largely undefined. This broad language gives courts room to apply principles designed to endure across generations by allowing future interpretation as society changes and evolves. Statutory language also intentionally embraces strategic ambiguity in order to bridge the gap between lawmakers with different political ideologies, leave the details to administrative agencies and the courts, and allow the laws to breathe as technology and social norms evolve.
But broad, nonprescriptive constitutional and statutory language is only a virtue when the American public puts good-faith actors in charge. In the hands of a bad-faith leader, strategic ambiguity becomes a weapon.
Trump is a bad-faith actor with a wide authoritarian streak. He is systematically testing the limits of the law, probing for soft spots, loopholes, and ambiguities to increase his power and provide him legal cover to do “whatever I want.” He knows that his assertions of unprecedented presidential authority will be challenged, and that he will lose some of those challenges in the lower federal courts along the way to the Supreme Court, which he believes will be too cowardly or too ideologically aligned with him to rein him in, if not every time, then at least often enough to leave him with powers expanded vastly beyond what anybody had previously imagined.
www.thebulwark.com
Long analysis here but it does go into details of how vulnerable the US is to a bad faith President.
When if ever will Conservatives recognise the danger Trump poses to a representative Democratic political system in the USA ?
Reining in Rogue Presidents
How ambiguities in the law gave Trump power he could seize—and what a future Congress can do about it.
Philip RotnerSep 17, 2025
There oughta be a law.
Seriously, there ought to be a law. Because the ones we have are not up to the task of reining in a bad-faith actor in the Oval Office.
Time and again in just eight months back in office, Donald Trump has advanced norm-busting assertions of presidential power far beyond anything ever attempted—or even dreamed of—by his predecessors. Trump has declared national emergencies purporting to justify hundreds of questionable actions that would typically require congressional approval or lengthy regulatory review. Those actions include the imposition of tariffs;
sending the military to Los Angeles;
federalizing the Washington, D.C. police force;
militarizing the southern border;
ending birthright citizenship;
deporting foreign students and scholars;
targeting colleges, universities and law firms;
undermining the independence of administrative agencies;
and dismantling (among other entities) the Department of Education.1
As tempting as it may be to call these actions “blatantly illegal,” the truth is actually worse. The constitutional and statutory ambiguities Trump is attempting to exploit really do exist. Indeed, strategic ambiguity has until recently generally been viewed as a feature, not a bug, of our legal system.
Our Constitution is framed in generalized language, with phrases like “due process” and “equal protection” left largely undefined. This broad language gives courts room to apply principles designed to endure across generations by allowing future interpretation as society changes and evolves. Statutory language also intentionally embraces strategic ambiguity in order to bridge the gap between lawmakers with different political ideologies, leave the details to administrative agencies and the courts, and allow the laws to breathe as technology and social norms evolve.
But broad, nonprescriptive constitutional and statutory language is only a virtue when the American public puts good-faith actors in charge. In the hands of a bad-faith leader, strategic ambiguity becomes a weapon.
Trump is a bad-faith actor with a wide authoritarian streak. He is systematically testing the limits of the law, probing for soft spots, loopholes, and ambiguities to increase his power and provide him legal cover to do “whatever I want.” He knows that his assertions of unprecedented presidential authority will be challenged, and that he will lose some of those challenges in the lower federal courts along the way to the Supreme Court, which he believes will be too cowardly or too ideologically aligned with him to rein him in, if not every time, then at least often enough to leave him with powers expanded vastly beyond what anybody had previously imagined.
Reining in Rogue Presidents
How ambiguities in the law gave Trump power he could seize—and what a future Congress can do about it.
www.thebulwark.com
Attachments
Craton
Mostly passive, contrarian.
- Joined
- 6 February 2013
- Posts
- 1,904
- Reactions
- 2,917
As Charlie Kirk often said and I'll paraphrase - no, you are wrong and I don't agree with you.
Similar threads
