It's one thing to have an opinion, its another thing to deny reality. Maybe reality is just a "cheap fake" to him.I can't take him seriously. It's mental illness level delusion if he's sincere, gaslighting otherwise. @dad4 is the only one that argues the "other" side on occasion that comes across as authentic.
Like everything else the government does, it is subject to abuse. I've seen it effectively used for doctors (in particular there has been a shortage in general medicine). Good and competent is still better than unskilled and/or criminal. I agree that 600,000 sounds excessive.Is X part of the MSM? I see X is decertifying conservative commentators who disagree with Musk over H1Bs. I see that replies to some of those commentators which agree with them are being labelled as possible spam, which is pretty weird.
The whole H1B thing seems somewhat odd to me. Do we need 600,000 H1B employees in the US? Are there really that many exceptional skill sets that cannot be serviced by US citizens or green card holders? I assume that all those 600K must be on the high end from a salary perspective given the shortage of their particular skill set.
FWIW, I see the short term need for H1Bs, but companies that "need" them should also
Bet you the 600K would reduce and the number (65K annually) wanted by companies would reduce.
- Concurrently hire a US employee to exclusively shadow with the intent to take over the role in 1-2 years.
- H1Bs should be paid at the top end of their grade (you'd need those) as they are exceptionally skilled or have a skill set in short supply.
- H1Bs should be reduced from the current 6 (3 + 3) year max to annual, with a maximum of 3 years total.
- Annual fee for a H1B should be set to $15,000.
- Breach for any H1B for a company results in revoking of all visas for that company, subsidiaries and parents and black list for 10 years.
I've worked with people with H1B visa holders and not a single one was "exceptional" or better than people we could have hired in the US. They were good/competent employees "only".
Is X part of the MSM? I see X is decertifying conservative commentators who disagree with Musk over H1Bs. I see that replies to some of those commentators which agree with them are being labelled as possible spam, which is pretty weird.
The whole H1B thing seems somewhat odd to me. Do we need 600,000 H1B employees in the US? Are there really that many exceptional skill sets that cannot be serviced by US citizens or green card holders? I assume that all those 600K must be on the high end from a salary perspective given the shortage of their particular skill set.
FWIW, I see the short term need for H1Bs, but companies that "need" them should also
Bet you the 600K would reduce and the number (65K annually) wanted by companies would reduce.
- Concurrently hire a US employee to exclusively shadow with the intent to take over the role in 1-2 years.
- H1Bs should be paid at the top end of their grade (you'd need those) as they are exceptionally skilled or have a skill set in short supply.
- H1Bs should be reduced from the current 6 (3 + 3) year max to annual, with a maximum of 3 years total.
- Annual fee for a H1B should be set to $15,000.
- Breach for any H1B for a company results in revoking of all visas for that company, subsidiaries and parents and black list for 10 years.
I've worked with people with H1B visa holders and not a single one was "exceptional" or better than people we could have hired in the US. They were good/competent employees "only".
X is MainStream Social Media. Not news media. It's unfortunate that people get their "news" from X, or any other social media. That having been said, since X is so ubiquitous there shouldn't be any censorship, by Musk, or previously Dorsey.Is X part of the MSM? I see X is decertifying conservative commentators who disagree with Musk over H1Bs. I see that replies to some of those commentators which agree with them are being labelled as possible spam, which is pretty weird.
The whole H1B thing seems somewhat odd to me. Do we need 600,000 H1B employees in the US? Are there really that many exceptional skill sets that cannot be serviced by US citizens or green card holders? I assume that all those 600K must be on the high end from a salary perspective given the shortage of their particular skill set.
FWIW, I see the short term need for H1Bs, but companies that "need" them should also
Bet you the 600K would reduce and the number (65K annually) wanted by companies would reduce.
- Concurrently hire a US employee to exclusively shadow with the intent to take over the role in 1-2 years.
- H1Bs should be paid at the top end of their grade (you'd need those) as they are exceptionally skilled or have a skill set in short supply.
- H1Bs should be reduced from the current 6 (3 + 3) year max to annual, with a maximum of 3 years total.
- Annual fee for a H1B should be set to $15,000.
- Breach for any H1B for a company results in revoking of all visas for that company, subsidiaries and parents and black list for 10 years.
I've worked with people with H1B visa holders and not a single one was "exceptional" or better than people we could have hired in the US. They were good/competent employees "only".
I think companies abuse it - Congress has approved the 65K annually and the 3+3 = 6 year max. Congress would and should revise all that and put some pretty stringent guardrails around it specifying what qualifies for a H1B visa, e.g. there are hundreds of thousands in tech which is really weird to me as we have 100K-150K computer science graduates annually, so there shouldn't really be a shortage over time.Like everything else the government does, it is subject to abuse. I've seen it effectively used for doctors (in particular there has been a shortage in general medicine). Good and competent is still better than unskilled and/or criminal. I agree that 600,000 sounds excessive.
I think Facebook was the #1 for news that people quoted a while back. That seems to throw the whole MSM theory up in the air as Facebook's algorithms feed you what they think you will like and interact with, including news. So its just reinforcing whatever your existing biases are.X is MainStream Social Media. Not news media. It's unfortunate that people get their "news" from X, or any other social media. That having been said, since X is so ubiquitous there shouldn't be any censorship, by Musk, or previously Dorsey.
We have definitional differences. I consider the MSM, or aka legacy media, as news media. NBC, CBS, ABC and to a lesser extent cable news CNN, MSNBC, which are left dominated and Fox which is right dominated. X, Insta, Facebook are social media and anyone who gets their news from there is an idiot. You're being disingenous if you dont think the MSM that I mentioned isnt clearly strong left bias. Just look how they tried to cover up Bidens obvious cognitive decline.I think Facebook was the #1 for news that people quoted a while back. That seems to throw the whole MSM theory up in the air as Facebook's algorithms feed you what they think you will like and interact with, including news. So its just reinforcing whatever your existing biases are.
I don't look at the news on any of them tbh. Apparently the majority of Americans are not influenced by their bias either, or they don't look at them or they are idiots!We have definitional differences. I consider the MSM, or aka legacy media, as news media. NBC, CBS, ABC and to a lesser extent cable news CNN, MSNBC, which are left dominated and Fox which is right dominated. X, Insta, Facebook are social media and anyone who gets their news from there is an idiot. You're being disingenous if you dont think the MSM that I mentioned isnt clearly strong left bias. Just look how they tried to cover up Bidens obvious cognitive decline.
That sounds like something Husker would say. I dont watch it, so it doesnt exist. It all falls under the umbrella of denial.I don't look at the news on any of them tbh. Apparently the majority of Americans are not influenced by their bias either, or they don't look at them or they are idiots!
I think the whole MSM thing is over used and pretty old/stale at this point.
Lol, I don't buy into the whining about MSM being biased that has been going on for years now. Its an old/stale pov that has been disproven at the polls in election after election.That sounds like something Husker would say. I dont watch it, so it doesnt exist. It all falls under the umbrella of denial.
The reason Americans werent influenced is because they trust their eyes more than their ears.
Where did I ever say that the MSM successfully influenced the election? I've actually said despite a coordinated narrative by MSM, the voters didn't fall for the gaslighting. That still doesn't make it right. And yes, the MSM has low viewership due to the fact that they've lost the public trust the last few years for failing to tell the truth about Biden, immigration and crime, just to name a few. That's what you call "the proof is in the pudding".Lol, I don't buy into the whining about MSM being biased that has been going on for years now. Its an old/stale pov that has been disproven at the polls in election after election.
I don't watch cable news as they are just annoying whiny opinion merchants on both sides, I literally tuned out years ago. The actual viewing numbers for cable news are pretty miniscule relative to the population with Fox being the leader having a couple of million viewers at prime time in a country with a population of 340M. Fox had 70 of the top 100 news casts in 2024 for cable news.
The morning shows on your MSM have viewships of 3M or less. The most watched nightly news is around 7M at peak.
150M people voted - they are not been led by MSM. Its just an easy "they're out to get you" argument that doesn't hold any water.
So you are complaining about the lack of news coverage of an “obvious decline” from one news source while basing that on what? The opinions aired on another “news” source? You apparently derive your trust on a purely partisan basis.Where did I ever say that the MSM successfully influenced the election? I've actually said despite a coordinated narrative by MSM, the voters didn't fall for the gaslighting. That still doesn't make it right. And yes, the MSM has low viewership due to the fact that they've lost the public trust the last few years for failing to tell the truth about Biden, immigration and crime, just to name a few. That's what you call "the proof is in the pudding".
So Musk allegedly removing posters' checkmarks (not actually blocking their posts) on a social media platform is more of a concern for you and an abuse of free speech/public trust than our primary news media outlets ignoring, hiding and disputing the obvious decline in Biden's cognitive ability? Got it.
What's even more ironic is the left whined like little bitches when the Russian's allegedly posted misinformation on Facebook which they claimed resulted in Trump's victory in 2016. Maybe others do, but I get zero political content on Facebook unless a friend posts a political comment. The only non-solicited content I get is for skiing, fishing or some company trying to sell something. If you actually "follow" and believe political content on Facebook, or any other social media, then you get what you deserve.
Should probably use Legacy media as MSM is evolving.X is MainStream Social Media. Not news media. It's unfortunate that people get their "news" from X, or any other social media. That having been said, since X is so ubiquitous there shouldn't be any censorship, by Musk, or previously Dorsey.
We are the news now and we should be. crush has been pushing his news to all of you for 7 years. We see what kind of legacy the Legacy Media Liars have become. Legacy got paid to play with cheating and lies with Covid. That right there is a deal breaker for me. Big Poison paid Legacy to pull our legs. 95% of my peeps took the jabs. Insane how Tel A Vision works on the brain. My advice for 2025 is the same as always. Get rid of Legacy TV, eat super healthy, no jabs, no mask and get your ass in the sun. No booze, only good water.Should probably use Legacy media as MSM is evolving.
It’s fortunate that people use X for their news. You can argue that honest reporting from honest reporters is better. But, that’s not even close to what the legacy media is. The beauty of X is that people can directly refute and add context. That doesn’t exist in Legacy media.