Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

What would 2021 thethe say?
I assure you - 2021 thethe was not too fond of Muslims and recognized the negatives of African migration.

But I understand why you would avoid these scenarios because then it makes your "Merit based system" comical in practice. There is no verification system for 75% of the world.

Food for thought on verfication:

 
So be it. At least it would be a meritocracy.

If a school bases admission on SAT scores and ends up with no people of a particular race because no one makes the grade, that’s not racist.

If a school decides it’s going to outright ban people of a certain race without even looking at their SAT scores because their data suggests they’ll probably never make the grade anyway, that would be racist.
Absent of that system, I am comfortable with using data to make broadly informed decisions. I recognize this will lead to some ballers being excluded, and some bums making it in... but i would bet strongly the overall outcomes would be substantially better.

In this scenario, the "vetting" is based on the country. We know better talent on average comes from Japan than Somalia. So let's prioritize accordingly.

Ive used this extreme hypothetical before. But there are few islands in the carriers where it is custom culture to force kids to eat their semen and canabalization is a norm.

Lets say, hypothetically, we knew that 99% of adults from that country are cannibals. Would it be acceptable to you for us as a nation to bar all immigrants from that country? Even though we may risk discriminating one the handful of functioning humans?
 
I assure you - 2021 thethe was not too fond of Muslims and recognized the negatives of African migration.

But I understand why you would avoid these scenarios because then it makes your "Merit based system" comical in practice. There is no verification system for 75% of the world.

Food for thought on verfication:

2021 thethe might not have been too fond of Muslims, or whoever else, but evidently believed a merit based immigration process that treated people as individuals was not only possible, but obviously correct. Not sure what changed.
 
Absent of that system, I am comfortable with using data to make broadly informed decisions. I recognize this will lead to some ballers being excluded, and some bums making it in... but i would bet strongly the overall outcomes would be substantially better.

In this scenario, the "vetting" is based on the country. We know better talent on average comes from Japan than Somalia. So let's prioritize accordingly.

Ive used this extreme hypothetical before. But there are few islands in the carriers where it is custom culture to force kids to eat their semen and canabalization is a norm.

Let’s say, hypothetically, we knew that 99% of adults from that country are cannibals. Would it be acceptable to you for us as a nation to bar all immigrants from that country? Even though we may risk discriminating one the handful of functioning humans?
I’m having a hard time envisioning an island of cannibals being able to fill out the necessary forms to even begin the vetting process. But if there was a way to determine which ones were functioning humans, I’d consider it an imperative to get them out.
 
2021 thethe might not have been too fond of Muslims, or whoever else, but evidently believed a merit based immigration process that treated people as individuals was not only possible, but obviously correct. Not sure what changed.

2021 thethe knew what the outcome of an actual merit based system would look like.
 
I’m having a hard time envisioning an island of cannibals being able to fill out the necessary forms to even begin the vetting process. But if there was a way to determine which ones were functioning humans, I’d consider it an imperative to get them out.
That's a clever way of not answering my question.

Africa is another example. They've been gifted trillions of dollars of tax payer money to improve their circumstances. What do they have to show for it? We can reasonably assume it's unlikely they will be sending us ballers, so why should we want them? Hell, id stop sending money yesterday bc it's clear it's being lit on fire (+ enriching NGOs)
 
That's a clever way of not answering my question.

Africa is another example. They've been gifted trillions of dollars of tax payer money to improve their circumstances. What do they have to show for it? We can reasonably assume it's unlikely they will be sending us ballers, so why should we want them? Hell, id stop sending money yesterday bc it's clear it's being lit on fire (+ enriching NGOs)
Suicidal empathy masked as 'color blindness'.

To dismiss all releavnt data in this decision making process is a shocking process.
 
Businesses should possess the right to hire as many incompetent executives as they want. It's their business and if they want to run it poorly, they should have that right to do that.

And in corporate America, those executives have to answer to board members and share holders.
The issue is there's no real consequence for that. Becuase most of these businesses are so big they cannot truly fail. When David Zaslav took over Warner, they had a stock value of around 43. The stock cratered to like 7, the stock shot back up because they talked about selling the business. You can bet Zaslev unless he retires will get another job in the industry even with his failure as an executive.
 
Back
Top