Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nah
The 2016 election told us what we needed to know. MAGA hats are the dunce caps of this era.
The "D" day pool, best guess as to when Trump is out
- Thread starter DIY-HP-LED
- Start date
The 2016 election told us what we needed to know. MAGA hats are the dunce caps of this era.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Ya can't make this shit up, FUCK TRUMPERS ARE STUPID!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-a-Lago files request to hire 61 foreign temporary workers
By Jamie Ehrlich, CNN
Updated 12:26 PM ET, Fri July 6, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/mar-a-lago-foreign-workers-request/index.html
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's resort, Mar-a-Lago, filed a request to the Department of Labor for 61 additional visas for foreign servers and cooks, according to a Job Order Records filed on Thursday and Friday.
The Florida resort requested 61 H-2B visas, which are visas for temporary non-agricultural workers. In order to obtain H-2Bs, employers must prove that there are not enough US workers who are "able, willing, qualified, and available" to do the temporary work. 40 of the visas were for servers, while 21 were for cooks.
In January, the resort requested 70 H-2B visas for cooks, housekeepers, and servers.
The latest request sets the wages at $12.68 per hour for the servers and $13.31 for the cooks. Due to terms set by the visa, employees can only work for the company that sponsors the visa itself. The servers and cooks would work October through May.
The President has said before in a 2015 interview with MSNBC that "getting help in Palm Beach during the season is almost impossible." However, the New York Times reported in 2016 that since 2010, only 17 of 300 American applicants were hired at the club. And since October of 2015, Mar-a-Lago has filed 10 separate requests for H-2B visas.
Though Mar-a-Lago requested 61 visas, information has not been made public on how many visas it will receive. Congress sets a cap of 66,000 new H-2B visas a year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-a-Lago files request to hire 61 foreign temporary workers
By Jamie Ehrlich, CNN
Updated 12:26 PM ET, Fri July 6, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/mar-a-lago-foreign-workers-request/index.html
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's resort, Mar-a-Lago, filed a request to the Department of Labor for 61 additional visas for foreign servers and cooks, according to a Job Order Records filed on Thursday and Friday.
The Florida resort requested 61 H-2B visas, which are visas for temporary non-agricultural workers. In order to obtain H-2Bs, employers must prove that there are not enough US workers who are "able, willing, qualified, and available" to do the temporary work. 40 of the visas were for servers, while 21 were for cooks.
In January, the resort requested 70 H-2B visas for cooks, housekeepers, and servers.
The latest request sets the wages at $12.68 per hour for the servers and $13.31 for the cooks. Due to terms set by the visa, employees can only work for the company that sponsors the visa itself. The servers and cooks would work October through May.
The President has said before in a 2015 interview with MSNBC that "getting help in Palm Beach during the season is almost impossible." However, the New York Times reported in 2016 that since 2010, only 17 of 300 American applicants were hired at the club. And since October of 2015, Mar-a-Lago has filed 10 separate requests for H-2B visas.
Though Mar-a-Lago requested 61 visas, information has not been made public on how many visas it will receive. Congress sets a cap of 66,000 new H-2B visas a year.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
you already won. trump loves you.
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
no, anyone who does is wasting their time. these people are the dumbest of the dumb.
dumb ass soybean farmers can't sell their crop, but trump is doing his job well.
can't fix stupid, can only kill it...
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
inbreeding is working but it does take time. lol.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It depends on the context
In the context of social issues, you're right, Democrats and Republicans are not the same. But in the context of campaign finance, Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, they even accept campaign contributions from the same industries, ensuring said industries always succeed in getting legislation that benefits them passed, regardless of who gets elected
Accepting money from any special interest group is corruption
Special interests expect a return on their investment, otherwise, they wouldn't contribute to a politicians campaign
Republicans like James Inhofe accept "legal campaign donations" from fossil fuel special interests, then vote against climate change legislation in the Senate. According to you, those "legal campaign donations" do not influence his vote. You and I both know you're not that stupid, you're lying. You know the legal money Inhofe takes from the fossil fuel industry influences his votes on climate change regulation.
The same can be said for Democrats who accept legal special interest money. To believe otherwise is naive
That's exactly why that statistic is meaningless. The only statistic that matters is if they accept campaign contributions from special interests or not. If they do, they're corrupt(able), if they don't, they're not. Very simple
Really? You need this explained to you?
OK..
If I give you money, you owe me something. I don't give money away for nothing, nobody does, especially people with lots of it. What you owe me is laxed regulations towards my industry. It's your job to vote how I want you to vote in congress. If you don't, you won't be getting my money next time around, instead, I'll use the money I would have given you to fund your opponents campaign, because he'll vote accordingly in congress, or, likewise, I won't fund him
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
and sadly enough, politicians wouldn't become politicians if it wasn't for the special interest money.
pruitt when in the OK state political "system" making 38K a year got approved for a 2 million loan to buy part of a minor league baseball team. then when he became AG, the bank that loaned him that money won a majority of financing bids for the gov't.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Actual progressives are slowly but surely beginning to change that
That's a bullshit myth that's been perpetuated by both left and right for long enough. Fuck Barney Frank
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
There's no need to wait for anything as you've done a bang-up job of proving it here and now
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
if they were truly progressive, they would feel the plight of the common man and accept minimum wage for whatever position they are running for. don't progressives believe in income equality?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's a pretty absurd premise
There's nothing wrong with earning money. The problem arises when the disparity between the rich and the poor becomes so great that the poor can no longer afford basic necessities. If the poor can't even afford the amenities required to bathe themselves, how can you expect them to afford to buy the products the rich produce?
If I can't afford to buy it, you can't sell it. That hurts us both.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It depends on the context -- Nope. It is naive to say Democrats are the same as Republicans. This is a fact and facts not subject to interpretation.
At least you are starting to accept there is a difference in social policies. Glad to know your comprehension is not zero.
Yet you are still denying facts. Democrats and Republicans are not the same in terms of campaign finance reform as the evidence recorded in the Congressional Record indicates. Every Democratic Caucus Senator seated in 2014 voted for repeal of Citizen's United and ever Republican voted against it to sustain a veto. No matter how bad your math skills, I would expect that even to the hapless @Padawanbater2 , 0% of Republicans supporting the measure is not the same as 100% of Democrats supporting Bernie's measure to repeal CU.
Accepting money to wage a campaign is not a corrupt act either. If you want to make changes to campaign financing laws, first take away control of Congress by Republicans. Most Democrats support campaign finance reforms but no Republicans do.
In order to control the house and bring a campaign finance reform bill to a vote, progressives and Progressives(TM) Democrats will need to hold 218 seats. At best, Progressives(TM) this year are going to seat somewhere between 1 and 8 of the Progressive(TM) brand. I realize numbers are a bit abstract to you but let me just say that 8 Progressive (TM) representatives <<<< 210 Democrats who didn't drink the koolaid.
How do you Progressives(TM) intend to enact campaign finance reform with all of 8 seats at the most? Progressives(TM) are going to need real progressives to enact that reform. Yet here you are making all sorts of false assumptions and slanderous statements about the very Democrats who literally voted for campaign finance reform when they could. Aren't you the one who keeps talking about kissing Republican ass in order to win back the presidency? You are one walking logical fallacy. Does your sister have to check to make sure you buttoned your shirt properly before you leave the house?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm not interested in your feelings about it. Address my previous points, or continue talking to yourself
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
"not interested in discussing belief". That's good because everything in my post was based upon facts.
For example: 0% GOP senator supporting repeal of the CU ruling is not the same as 100% Dem senators supporting repeal of CU. I realize numbers are hard for you so maybe you should talk with this one of over with a caregiver if you can't understand the difference between 0% and 100%.
I already did address your claims about corruption. It is a fact that accepting legal campaign donations is not a corrupt act.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Right. So you believe James Inhofe is not influenced in his votes by the legal campaign contributions he accepts?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm not Karnak. I don't claim read minds. You are the one who claims to be able to do that. You should just come out and say what Inhove is thinking. By our current system, accepting legal campaign donations is not a corrupt act without the promise by the recipient to give the donor something of value in return.
Do I see the conflict of interest? Yes, which is why I support campaign finance reform. Because campaign spending is heavily biased to the winning side, I don't support unilaterally refusing legal campaign donations. The objective is winning back the House this fall, not ideological purity. You can take your faux morality and shove it. It wasn't very long ago that you and other hypocritical Cultists were crying because Tillemann in Colorado didn't get a turn at the DCCC tit or at least that's his story.
If you want to change the law then Progressives(TM) will need at least 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate. At best, Progressives(TM) will have about 8 seats in the House and one in the Senate. IF you REALLY meant to get campaign laws changed, I would expect your Cult to try to work with others. Instead you are the kid in the corner that bites and nobody wants to have any association with.
You've never admitted that Justice Democrats fleeced you Progressives(TM). I find that extremely funny in light of all the hypothetical BS in your arguments.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So the special interests of the fossil fuel industry have to explicitly, and in writing, state, "This is a bribe, specifically so you do our bidding", in order for you to accept that it's government corruption?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Those are the rules we currently live under. If you want to change the rules, first you must be able to write them and have the numbers in Congress to pass them.
I repeat: Do I see the conflict of interest? Yes, which is why I support campaign finance reform. My congressmen support it too. Your idiotic idea of unilaterally refusing campaign donations to somehow flip Republican controlled districts is what I reject.
None of your Progressive(TM) candidates are running in districts that are even remotely conservative which just goes to show how much faith Progressives(TM) have in their own policies.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't remember asking about "the rules we live under". I just asked you if the special interests bribes that James Inhofe accepts from the fossil fuel industry influences his votes in the Senate. Do they or not? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question. No need for your added commentary. Simply answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'.
Lee Carter won in Virginia, Brent Welder is poised to win in Nebraska. Ben Jealous in Maryland. Stop lying
Lee Carter won in Virginia, Brent Welder is poised to win in Nebraska. Ben Jealous in Maryland. Stop lying
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Straight up, unless Inhofe is found to have taken campaign donations in return for favors by him then you have no case for accusing him of corruption. Absent evidence, you'd have to ask Inhofe if he is influenced by donations. I don't read minds.
There are plenty of examples where the congressional candidate's district has a large footprint in an industry. Manchin and the coal industry for example. It's completely understandable that Manchin, the majority of people in West Virginia and the coal industry are aligned and "pro-coal" without needing to trot up a corruption charge for Manchin's acceptance of fossil fuel lobbying donations.