Christ, we're fucked

1/30/2017 9:38:49 PM

Oh noes, crazy person doing crazy shit.

Why didn't anyone warn us before we voted for him?!

1/30/2017 9:39:32 PM

Well at least Trump hasn't deleted any emails.

1/30/2017 9:48:49 PM

We are so fucked

1/30/2017 9:51:12 PM

With the AG, I don't understand how any of it is legal.

So the legislative branch is still in the process of confirming Trump's pick. Trump doesn't like that. The appointed AG says something Trump doesn't like. Trump fires appointed AG. Trump picks his own interim AG. So while we wait on the Senate to confirm Trump's pick for AG, we have Trump's pick for AG being AG.

How is any of that legal?

1/30/2017 10:08:36 PM

Is Bannon driving this and what amounts to a white nationalist coup?

1/30/2017 10:14:33 PM

The firing acting attorney general doesn't bother me, the press release to announce the firing is disturbing.

They way the signed the EO blocking muslims by cutting out DHS and key stakeholders, the admonishing these stakeholders from complaining is disturbing.

Reports bannon is already skirting records laws and creating his own enclave with the NSC is disturbing, very reminiscent of Cheneys actions when manufacturing intel for Iraq war.

Problem is what is bannon manufacturing? We know he has white nationalist ties, he has given a few interviews where he describes his ideology as creating chaos and collapse, then rebuilding in his image.

Congress has so far been extremely slow to react to these actions.

It was widely noted a few weeks ago that none of the correcting mechanisms in our democracy are self executing, trump clearly has the DOJ on a tight leash, has purged the state dept, has Ryan eating out his hand, democrats have little clout in congress and have no chance for 2 years. The only capable democratic check left is the court system which trump this week has shown a willingness to ignore and attack.

None of this is looking good...

Edit:
On the plus side, the ACLU has gotten their largest donations in history, dwarfing previous years donations. We've seen the largest national and global protests in history, the recent Muslim ban has shown people get organize in short time to both get lawyers to affected places and draw media attention.

[Edited on January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2017 10:15:39 PM

Quote :

" The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country. Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/30/read-full-white-house-statement-sally-yates/HkFReIYJidU9deDelPK6SM/story.html



Exacting political scores is classic totalitarianism. What more evidence do we all need to know that this guy is dangerous?

1/30/2017 10:16:47 PM

Help Elon Musk Help America!!!

SpaceX's Elon Musk Seeks Twitter Help to Change Trump Immigration Order

http://www.space.com/35500-elon-musk-trump-on-immigration-order.html

1/31/2017 12:03:22 AM

Don't care about the firing. Was inevitable but good for her. Irony is in Jeff Sessions comments to her when she was confirmed. He is one big flaming hypocrite if he doesn't support Yates' decision here and come out publicly so.

Dems need to not make SCOTUS pick this time a battle if it's even remotely palatable. Bigger battles for the court down the line and precedent is now set to block if after 2018 midterms.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 6:03 AM. Reason : The annoucememt is in .... PRIME... time]

1/31/2017 6:02:33 AM

^ Pretty much that.

This woman knew she was on her way out anyway, and decided to be proactive about it and stand up for what's right.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 7:49 AM. Reason : ]

1/31/2017 7:46:22 AM

Quote :

"Inbox: "President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace""

+ some

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 8:38 AM. Reason : although you shouldn't get credit for equal protection but low bar here]

1/31/2017 8:13:02 AM

The 'in the workplace' qualifier is somewhat worrying. That could just be my natural distrust of this administration though.

1/31/2017 8:27:51 AM

Could it be that all of the SJW signs about equality worked?!?!

Or could it be that Trump doesn't care who you fuck and never did because dividing people into arbitrary "victim" groups based on race/gender is the DNC strategy, not the GOP strategy?

BUT MUH NARRATIVE

1/31/2017 9:23:19 AM

Yeah man, totally the Dems that slipped through HB2. And the divisive DNC that pushes back against marriage equality. And those darn liberals refusing service to the LGBT communities.

You nailed it! Treat yourself, go on and head up upstairs from the basement and sneak yourself a Fresca from your mom's supply.

1/31/2017 9:34:53 AM

The leftists using the government to force private business owners to do things... right.

So much "oppression" for the LGBTBBQ community... if I'm a man, I have to use the man's bathroom? OPPRESSION

If I'm a flaming gay, I have to pick a different bakery for my wedding cake because the Christian lady wont put 2 dudes bwning on the top of it? OPPRESSION

The authoritarian left wants to convince people that equality and compromises are "OPPRESSION". Trump took down the LGBTBBQ section of his website because his politics don't revolve around telling minorities they are victimized by fake oppression.

1/31/2017 10:14:07 AM

1/31/2017 10:50:02 AM

1/31/2017 10:54:51 AM

JCE, will love this. lmbo

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKBN15F1D7

Also Trump didnt take the LGBT section out, the site is wiped automatically. He just hasn't added one back in.

1/31/2017 12:19:40 PM

Separate but equal. Totally cool right JCE!!???

1/31/2017 12:23:37 PM

God forbid we don't have a race-baiting, divisive, identity politics, collectivist piece of shit dividing everyone as POTUS

GOD FORBID

1/31/2017 12:23:55 PM

Identity politics is a problem. So is oppression. There is a middle ground here.

1/31/2017 12:26:48 PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/h-1b-visa-reform-bill-introduced-in-us-house-of-representatives/articleshow/56888616.cms

The cost of Tech products and services is going to go through the roof.

1/31/2017 12:33:25 PM

Doesn't really belong in the Trump thread but if that bill passes there is going to be a severe lack of qualified people to fill those positions. Need some kind of massive skills training program to coincide or it's an awful idea.

Was literally just reading some chartbooks from the head economist for Deutsche while I eat and the tech industry is already taking longer to fill jobs (read: find qualified employees) since the tech explosion.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2017 12:42:24 PM

Ooohh, I anxiously await tech CEOs to grow spines now that Cheetolini might be affecting their bottom lines. Such vision, such courage. SMH.

1/31/2017 12:47:14 PM

Maybe the problem is not finding "qualified employees", it's being willing to train new employees who don't fit the job profile to a T.

1/31/2017 12:51:33 PM

^yep, definitely a part of the problem and it extends well beyond the Tech sector too.

1/31/2017 12:55:11 PM

^^ what incentive does a company have to do that, though? It's going to cost more (in terms of real cost and opportunity cost) to do that than it does to pay the salary in that bill.

And this all goes back to affordable higher education as well

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 1:01 PM. Reason : and/or focus on vocational training]

1/31/2017 1:00:49 PM

From a business standpoint, the best qualified applicant is not necessarily the best investment.

From a societal standpoint, government exists to provide those incentives (or dis-incentivizes). Good for business is not always good for society.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2017 1:06:15 PM

Education isnt the problem either, because these days most degreed people get locked into a specialization, and companies hire based on specialization, not your degree.

1/31/2017 1:19:34 PM

Well the Obama admin tried to push legislation that incentivized companies to implement German style apprenticeship programs which would have helped a lot. Of course, it went about as far as any bill he proposed post-2010.

1/31/2017 1:36:16 PM

Im not gonna lie I would love to find a job at a great company making peanuts for a few years for them to train me and I can work out the next 25 years with them at a nice salary.

1/31/2017 2:19:11 PM

^^^How is that unavoidable though? An NC State grad with a computer science degree has thousands of different jobs ahead of him/her...anything from a DBA in an IT shop to a programmer out in SV. Once you get into a job, you learn that job for a few years, become good at it, and then boom, 10 years pass, you're a specialist, but you're trained on one particular thing.

1/31/2017 2:25:36 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?postshare=2611485889175975&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.e58151937a62

The white nationalist agenda we all knew was coming.

1/31/2017 2:33:33 PM

How is that white nationalist? Protectionist and not backed up any economic research and likely to have a net negative effect on the economy? Yes.

1/31/2017 2:40:18 PM

^^^
I'm not sure what your exact question is, but the problem is when you want/need to find a new job, the specialization can become a hindrance, depending on market fluctuations/your ability to relocate.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2017 2:42:07 PM

^^ He's an SJW Hack

Anything he doesn't like is "racist".

In this case not offering tax payer money to dependent illegal immigrants. It has nothing to do with our national debt, it's because of racism.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/31/2017 2:42:32 PM

^^^
They are further demonizing immigrants and potentially implementing the decision to hassle and deport in a way that is open to personal biases. Combined with the recent order that blocks legal residents from returning from brown countries, these policies are clearly designed to oppress nonwhites.

Why target immigrants when the overall burden to the system is overwhelmingly citizens.

Not to mention trump is the guy that put off at least a billion in losses to the tax payers.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2017 2:47:52 PM

When people say immigrants provide economic benefit, it makes me wonder what metric they're going by. Is it similar to judging economic health by the Dow Jones Index?

My other question is how can you be against exporting labor (outsourcing), but for importing it (work visas)? It's obvious that cheap visa labor saturates the job market in a multitude of ways. Some immigration is healthy, but it's not wrong to limit it.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2017 2:57:36 PM

I agree based on everything I have researched that the premise is flawed and it's probably playing to some unfounded fears of working-class America.

But it undermines the position of it being misguided policy to label it as racist or white nationalistic. By all means, though, empower the people who voted for this lunatic to double down on their support of him by making this always about race. Take for instance the travel ban debate. Yes, it may be playing to the fears of the worst common denominator (I get that and agree) but it's also really bad policy that will not make us safer and may even contribute to making us LESS safe if you listen to experts.

^ it's really bookish and theory driven. The idea of globalization being a net-positive is contingent on a government that will transfer wealth to compensate the "losers." The practical and easy to understand part is it will drive up prices of everyday goods and that burden will harm the lowest in society more.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM. Reason : X]

1/31/2017 3:00:18 PM

I'm not opposed to globalism. I think it's inevitable, and will eventually be a net good.

But globalism based on corporatism is not acceptable. We need a people-focused government and a functioning society before we can expand outwards.

It's painful seeing liberals defend corporate exploitation of the workforce.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2017 3:10:29 PM

^^ it's not misguided at all, it's entirely accurate given the full context of statements and decisions in the trump admin. It would be counterproductive to market your opposition this way (tww is not a mass market audience) but does anyone deny that trumps campaign and rhetoric has been built primarily on racism? These policies are the outgrowth of that.

Of all the burdens on the system do you really think legal immigrants using some welfare is a top priority? Eliminating those people from the country wouldn't cause a dent in employment and deficit while simulatanesouly hurting a lot of people and families. Keep in mind the founder of google was a refugee, Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant fleeing oppression. Immigrants are the most entrepreneurial class of Americans as well, and tend to be the most motivated. We cast them out at our peril.

The problem with our economy isn't that there isn't enough to go around, it's growing inequality as trump and his cabinet members attempt to horde and gain more wealth not based on their productivity.

1/31/2017 3:19:58 PM

Quote :

"but does anyone deny that trumps campaign and rhetoric has been built primarily on racism?"

People like you don't realize it, but when you say such stupid things you are essentially campaigning for Trump's 2nd term.

1/31/2017 3:25:50 PM

Work visas and outsourcing tighten the job market, but more importantly, drive down salaries and benefits. I'm not sure how you can argue against that. That's the effect of globalism in an oligarchy.

1/31/2017 3:27:26 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/DeVos-questionnaire-appears-to-include-passages-10897362.php

Already taking tips from the first lady. I weep for our students.

1/31/2017 3:40:29 PM

^^ those are broad generalizations that don't apply equally to all jobs and markets. The easy example is tech companies that use immigrant and outsourcing heavily but also are one of the highest paying sectors. Wages are a dynamic system that factors in productivity and efficiency.

The prevailing factor historically for keeping wages up has been top marginal tax rate and capital gains taxes.

When the financial sector was deregulated in the 80s this was the big inflection point for inequality because companies knew they didn't have to invest in people or research to make money they had all sorts of derivative options. If you tighten this up, this will hurt incomes of the rich like trump and his cabinet but result in more actual cash going to wages and benefits which in turn leads to more spending throughout the economy. And this is just 1 way.

What won't address inequality at all? Demonizing the poor, demonizing immigrants , tax subsidies for factories run by robots, trade wars, and almost all the core tenants of trumps plans.

1/31/2017 3:52:23 PM

You may get pushback but that is a pretty good overview (few things that I don't have time until tmw to add if Inremember) and your last paragraph is exactly what Democrats should be arguing but not in a "everything and everyone is racist kind of way.

1/31/2017 3:55:48 PM

Quote :

"It's painful seeing liberals defend corporate exploitation of the workforce"

That's because Democrats, by and large, morphed from the party of the working class, to the party of the educated professional. They worship Steve Jobs rather than Cesar Chavez. They put their "I'm with her" bumper stickers on their new Lexus instead of their old beaters. And they support supply side economics and technological advances and automation because they think their jobs are above redundancy. They applaud companies like Uber and AirBnB for their "innovation" and ignore all the regulations and labor laws they skirt.

1/31/2017 3:57:54 PM

There is so much misinformation regarding globalization in this thread, even for TWW standards.

Quote :

"When people say immigrants provide economic benefit, it makes me wonder what metric they're going by."

Immigrants increase economic efficiency by reducing labor shortages in low- and high-skilled markets because their educational backgrounds fill holes in the native-born labor market. This is a good place to start for all the anti-globalists (which are abundant in this thread): http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration
"[A]s a consequence of the availability of more workers, firms invest: they expand their productive capacity and build more establishments. The productive capacity (capital) per worker has grown in the U.S. economy at a constant rate during the period from 1960 to 2009. If anything, capital per worker was higher when immigration was at its peak in 2007 than it was in 1990 before the immigration boom began."

But, if you want an actual metric:
For the United States as a whole, immigrants’ share of total output was about 14.7 percent over 2009–2011. Note that this is actually larger than immigrants’ 13 percent share of the population.

Quote :

"It's obvious that cheap visa labor saturates the job market in a multitude of ways. Some immigration is healthy, but it's not wrong to limit it."

There has always been a cap on H-1B visas, and most employers (especially small business owners) agree that the market for low-skilled workers is no where near saturation. In fact there is a long ongoing debate to increase the cap on H-1Bs.

Quote :

"The idea of globalization being a net-positive is contingent on a government that will transfer wealth to compensate the "losers." The practical and easy to understand part is it will drive up prices of everyday goods and that burden will harm the lowest in society more."

Again, so much misinformation. First, your false assumption that only governments who transfer wealth can be winners in a global economy is so far from accurate, it amazes me that you even decided to comment on this topic. In general, not only does globalization decrease the price of everyday goods, but it also increases the standard of living for ALL parties involved. To the first world consumers, prices are not only decreased, but there is a transfer to more highly skilled and technical jobs. To the third world producers (and subsequently consumers and contributors to the global economy), higher paying low skilled jobs are offered.

Quote :

"But globalism based on corporatism is not acceptable. We need a people-focused government and a functioning society before we can expand outwards."

Mush. Of course we shouldn't allow crony capitalism, just like we should limit the restrictions imposed by a government.

1/31/2017 4:09:16 PM

Quote :

"^ those are broad generalizations that don't apply equally to all jobs and markets. The easy example is tech companies that use immigrant and outsourcing heavily but also are one of the highest paying sectors. Wages are a dynamic system that factors in productivity and efficiency. "

I would wager that it applies to almost all job markets. The fact that tech is a highly paid industry doesn't mean wages aren't driven down by labor trade. And tech is one of the smallest sectors of the immigrant workforce (which constitutes 1/5 of the US workforce).

Quote :

"When the financial sector was deregulated in the 80s this was the big inflection point for inequality because companies knew they didn't have to invest in people or research to make money they had all sorts of derivative options. If you tighten this up, this will hurt incomes of the rich like trump and his cabinet but result in more actual cash going to wages and benefits which in turn leads to more spending throughout the economy. And this is just 1 way."

I don't understand how this solves the problem of labor globalisation. You'll just see more visas/outsourcing. I agree with your point, but you need to solve both problems.

1/31/2017 4:10:40 PM