And call out their support for an ignorant racist sexist piece of shit.

but we are all very much victims of the impoverishing of America.

it is also evil to put someone in the position where they have to choose between voting for someone who has already sold them out, or a racist. I don't think this party has any intention of facing that (at least what I've seen so far, present company excepted)

it's the moral hazard of voting for the 'lesser of the evils'. If both sides are convinced that the population will reliably do it, the choices will be guaranteed to get progressively more evil. The voter who votes for the 'lesser of the evils', while voting for less evil today, is still a passive enabler of future evil, which could ultimately end up be as evil or worse than today's choice

The voters didn't care about being called names.

or suffer ever stronger defeats

the 'grace period' of the blind eye to all this stuff is over.

This election had 2 candidates, one in favor of raising the number of H-1b visas, and the other pledging to do something about the abuse. I had the displeasure of not voting for someone who at least acknowledged for the first time that this is even happening, because he was unfit. But I can understand why someone who worked hard to get a computer science degree for the perceived economic security, then ended up having to train a foreign replacement on an H-1b visa and then watched their family slide out of the middle class (and yes, this really does happen, a LOT) might have voted for him. You have to remember, when these people were younger fresh grads, the workforce would *never* have selected someone in the workforce to train them and be replaced - *never*. If you didn't get a job when you graduated, that was just too bad. But foreign nationals on H-1b visas expect (and get, with help from our 'reps' like Hillary) exactly that

whether he's lying or not, racist or not, give people a perceived choice between survival and voting for someone you feel sold you out, a lot of people are going to pick survival

if the message is 'be obedient, and jump under that bus, or we'll call you a racist', you're going to lose

it's an interesting game we play. First, we encourage everyone to go into STEM fields. There is a STEM crisis!

Then, when people go into STEM fields, and then expect to be compensated (because there is a STEM crisis!), business leaders just figure they'll hire someone from overseas who will work for much less. (or even, in some cases, they still pay them pretty well - the important things seems to be to stick a thumb in local workers' eyes. ). And the government lets them. i don't know what the point is. If there really were a STEM crisis, me and all of the other people i work with in science and research would have our pick of excellent, high paying jobs.

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 01:17 PM - Edit history (3)

it's more simple than that - they're indentured servants. Who's easier to bargain with? A free person who can offer what they have to you (or someone else) and negotiate with you, or someone who's indentured to you?

negotiating is a tough part of life, and if an amoral person can avoid that nuisance by to some degree 'owning' the other party, they will.

plus, excess H-1b visas flood the market in the favor of the employer

and they allow an employer to privatize the gains of a public asset (the right to immigrate), by letting them into the country in the first place(on the H-1b visa) , then string them along while indentured with 'support' for a green card (another public asset). I've seen countless co workers jerked around by the green card game, to keep them in line and undercut my bargaining power. And Hillary's record on all of this H-1b visas and outsourcing is HORRIBLE, and the attitude of Hillary's supporters toward anyone concerned about it was pretty much this



(it's unreal that many here complaining about her loss still have that animated graphic, clearly designed to gloat about her victory - how tone deaf can you get?)

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The country is screwed because the candidate who won nearly 3 million more votes was denied the win by Comey, Putin, Assange, complicit media, racist voter ID laws and the Supreme Court gutting the voting rights act.

That is what has to change or we will always have repug election manipulators in charge. They know how to do it with the present electoral college farce so why would they stop unless we figure out how to stop them?

Where are the prominent Democratic leadership voices on this issue?

The Democrats are paid to lose. They sometimes eke out a win, but it isn't because they protect their voting constituencies.

The Republicans are paid to win.

The results are not too surprising.