Not surprised, just hope people understand that the future for working-class America is grim. How do you interpret her statement about open borders?

It's not your interpretation of it that's the problem (although removing trade barriers and spreading Americas unsustainably strict monopoly grants worldwide are equally great concerns for neoliberals).

It's that you said H1B is comparable to the kind of immigration reform businesses want. It isn't. A program with a wage floor, a quota, which allows dual intent, which lets you transfer to another employer any time? **** off, corporations want slaves.

TN visa is the prototype of what Clinton would suggest for immigration reform, it's what her husband lobbied for in the first place. One employer only, definite time limit, specialty occupation only, no wage controls, no permanent LMO required, not legally eligible for permanent residence. ****, applicants are even legally required to pay the application fee, the employer isn't allowed to. That's the kind of new employment visas a Clinton government would give you.

You should be begging for more H1Bs. At least a few H1s will choose to stay, start businesses in the US or spend their US income there instead of leaving the country. Instead you'll get actual transient labourers who only visit the US long enough to do the parts of the job that can't be done remotely.

US immigration is broken far beyond the comprehension of the average American. Most of you think it's maybe a little ****y. Well, it's not. It's turbo ****y.

It is almost impossible to cofound a business in the US, for example, unless you're dumping $1m of your own cash into it. You can't sponsor yourself for a visa, and your company cannot sponsor you unless it is overwhelmingly US owned (sponsors need to have an employer-employee relationship).

Edit: It's not obvious why this situation is stupid, so I'll explain. This is stupid because a foreign founder would have to give up a majority stake in order to found the company in the US, right out the door, while getting basically nothing in return. Founding in the US is a pretty **** deal; you have way more regulations and much higher total cost of employment without the productivity advantage to justify it (salaries are higher for no good reason, and you have to pay for health insurance, and the overhead of getting your **** sorted with cripplingly underfunded government agencies). Basically there is almost no reason to start a company in the United States as it is, the only reason you would want to is for the hope of a big corporate finance payout, so chopping that in half pretty much makes starting a small business in the US a stupid choice.

The DHS realized these rules are ****ing retarded, so they instructed their agents to basically just not deport people who are working out of status on their own companies as long as the company is profitable enough. But those people are still breaking the law, and it's not clear whether that rule will stick around or what will happen to any founders who try it.

That's how ****ed it is. DHS is encouraging illegal immigration for business owners.

And like I said, let's say you want to do it legit. Most US work visas are not dual intent. What that means is that you cannot get or renew the visa if you have any immigrant intent.

Once you're in the US you can apply for a change of status, but that's where it gets tricky. If you develop immigrant intent after entering on the visa, you cannot leave the country because they will not let you back in. You also have to hope you win the green card lottery before your visa expires, because you cannot renew it after you change status, but you still have to leave if it expires.

You also cannot quit your job or apply for a new one, or risk getting fired by not working 100 hours a week, because your visa is tied to your current employer. So, if you actually want to stay in the US long term, you must first work as a literal slave who cannot quit or risk being fired until you win the green card lottery, otherwise you are out forever. (applying for PR even once is enough to establish immigrant intent.)

Turbo ****y.

Source: I am a foreign worker on a work visa who quit the US to start a business. (I never planned on staying permanently, but I also wouldn't have been allowed to anyway.)

Where is the business located?

Jhina.

My employer asked very nicely* if I would work remotely for a few more months, so I haven't started yet.

It will be in Canada. There are a lot of benefits for small tech CCPCs, better tax treatment for early employees, and first/second generation founders get a huge break if they reinvest after a liquidity event. The disadvantages are less access to US investment, loss of CCPC benefits if you do get foreign investment, minority shareholders are given better protections in Canada than in Delaware, and domestic investors tend to offer much lower valuations (on top of pricing in the CCPC benefits, so those advantages are effectively lost even if you seek domestic investment). None of those disadvantages apply to me because I'm bootstrapping, but most tech founders can't afford that.

So on net, Canada is probably a worse deal for most founders because your company might happen in the US, but might not happen here.

Like always, I will be writing in Cthulhu with Aleister Crowley for vice. Why vote the lesser of two evils?

I'm not sure Cthulhu is fit for office. Then again, it's a third party candidate, so it's not like it stands a chance.

So I intentionally left this poll with the two primary options because unless one, the other, or both of them drop out one of them (Clinton) will be the next president. I still do not plan to vote for either of these two. Still looking at a write-in protest vote. I am proud to have not ever been on the Trump bandwagon. Remember how Kasich looked like a huge douche being the last un-viable candidate in the race? I kind of feel like that's going to be the hardcore Always Trumpers. Election day will come and Trump will get demolished and we'll all be looking at those people wondering why they haven't gone home yet. Also, it would be nice if the media would cover this election like they did in the past. Call the race as soon as there's a clear winner. Let's not pretend that it matters what the west coast does. Unless of course Trump doesn't actually end up losing "big league" (I still swear he was saying "bigly" up until they retconned it) and they have to pretend that he might somehow win California because, you know, Mexicans love Trump so much. But hey, at least Trump isn't a rapist. Wow, that's something to be proud of. Of course we have a few more weeks of revelations to come.

Clinton has been almost surely a win since 2015. She has better funding, better staffers, more connections and actually understands how to set up political deals. Also is not a dysfunctional narcissist like Trump, she's functional (basically all politicians are narcissists by design).

This election is so disgusting... it's like choosing what meal you're gonna vomit and eat up again.

I can't wait for this election to be over so I can stop hearing these weak false equivalence memes.

I tried to watch the debate last night but at some point I asked my wife if she actually wanted to watch it. Neither of us did so I put something else on. As indefensible as Trump is, how is it that he can't seem to prepare in the slightest for such obvious questions? For example, how hard would it be to give an answer such as:

"Look, I've said many things I'm not proud of but what you don't see are many women accusing me of harassment, assault, or rape. Not everyone who has ran for president, or served as president for that matter, can make that claim."

Serves the purpose of apple-ogizing for his behavior and contrasting with Bill Clinton without actually saying, "yeah, but Bill Clinton." Of course this kind of won't really work when they have some actual allegation of harassment, assault, or rape to float before the next debate and you know what? Screw that guy. He used the freaking National Enquirer to demean Cruz during the primary. There was one point last night where I realized that Clinton actually is pretty good at the town hall format where I reflected on what a lost opportunity it was that it wasn't Ted Cruz that excels at debating on that stage with her.

And that reminds me of another thing. I'm from Seattle but I lived in Rhode Island for three years. That's where I got my driver's license but we moved back to Washington for my last year of high school. I didn't have the required classes to get a license as a 17 year old so I waited until I turned 18 so I would just have to take the written and driving test. About half way through my driving test I realized I was doing everything wrong. One hand on the wheel, slowing down to quickly for the turn, probably not keeping "proper distances", maybe not watching the speedometer close enough. Basically, I already had bad habits and by the time I realized what was going on it was too late. A couple weeks later I retook the test and aced it. If I were him on that stage last night getting my ass kicked, I'm pretty sure I would have noticed how she was excelling at talking to the people, speaking in complete sentences, etc, and I would have started to emulate what she was doing well.

They're all 100% true, though.

To be fair, Wookie, I don't think there's anything that could make Donald Trump start speaking in complete sentences.

I may have had too much coffee yesterday, thus the willingness to compare the election to my gastric reflux.

I agree. Funny thing is, that sort of thing added to his "charm". It was cute and showed that he wasn't a slick, practiced politician. Normal people can start making a new point mid sentence. The key is that both fractured sentences must be coherent. Trump has lost any semblance of coherence he might have had.

I don't understand why someone would prefer an inarticulate and undiplomatic person for a job that is literally all public speaking and diplomacy, but sure, I'll agree that it's one of the man's best traits.

I don't either. But a third of "Republican" voters did. Although, I think it is easy to see how a plain spoken person speaking from the heart could win people's hearts. Trump is that to the stupid among us.

They prefer Trump because the Democrats took Trump seriously: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/

Damn, this election would make a funny movie.

You're making this way too complicated. You don't need fancy logic to explain the decisions of people like Lola Butler, 71:



"Plain spoken" = not noticeably less ignorant than me, so I don't have to hate him (nor do I have him for being that and simultaneously black). So yeah, it was enough to earn him people's hearts, so long as they didn't have a brain.

oh don't worry, I'm sure countless Trump 2016 scripts have been in the works for months and months.

A lot of us are voting for issues, not people. Hillary's experience, drive, determination, ability to speak, ability to form a coherent sentence, etc., simply doesn't matter when we know ahead of time the types of things she's going to propose, veto, not veto, or the people she's going to nominate to sit on the supreme court.

We know she's anti-2nd amendment and she thinks the previous supreme court decision was wrong. We know she's going to sign, not veto, any gun control bill that shows up on her desk. We know she's going to nominate anti-gun liberals to the supreme court. So any person who owns or wants to own a firearm is going to have a much more difficult time getting one (or the one they want, or the accessories they want). She's for the expired "assault weapon" ban which didn't help anything. She's for limited-capacity magazines. She's for the laws in places like Washington DC which essentially banned hangun ownership even if they never left your private property. She's for bans on concealed or open carry, even with training and a permit.

We know she's pro-abortion. I wish there was some middle-ground here where we all agreed to pay for thorough education ahead of time (for everyone, not just those in liberal states!) and we all agreed that since the supreme court decided it was legal, we need to stop taking rights away. But rather than use government/taxpayer money to just keep funding something that many of think is wrong in most cases, use it to help people avoid the need to make the decision in the first place. It seems to me that there are ways to reduce the number of actual abortions if we stop trying to make them illegal and instead fight to make them unnecessary in the first place.

We all know she's for large government and will continue to vote for increased government and government control/intervention in many people's lives. Expanded welfare, expanded low-income housing, expanded tax breaks/credits/refunds for low-income people, more programs like obamacare (which has resulted in significant cost increases and we still have tons of people without insurance).

We all know she's pro-environment which will result in further regulations on businesses. I'm 100% totally for this and I'm disappointed that more religious-right people see this as an attack on freedom rather than a defense of our personal rights to survival in a world not completely messed up by big businesses spewing pollution into the air, land, and water.

She's probably for consumer rights, consumer protections, etc. Like net neutrality, the recent FCC proposals, CPSC, etc. I'm 100% for these as well.

So if you put aside all the personal issues such as bad decisions around top secret information (and yes, I'm sure she's "learned her lesson" on this one so it won't happen again), whatever clusterf*** resulted in people getting killed in Benghazi, lying about being sick, or whatever other "scandal" has been in the news over the past few months, you still have to decide if you're with her on all the issues above, or if you disagree.

While I completely agree with her on a couple of issues, those issues are of less importance to me than the ones I disagree with her on. Which really means that I have no choice but to vote for the turd sandwich. Or was it the douche? I can't remember now.

However, voting for Trump because he's terrible in ways you find less offensive than Clinton in a state that she's going to win "big league" isn't going to matter either unless you do want to send the message that she's so bad you'll vote for Trump. I'm in essentially the same situation but my state will probably go Trump no matter what. I will use my vote for write-in or third party to send a message. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will receive the message and raging Trump supporters will destroy the Republican Party because the big government New York Democrat didn't beat Hillary.

My presidential vote has never mattered and likely will never matter as long as I live in this state. Washington always goes democrat. At least, it has since I turned 18 and started voting.

It's been over thirty years since there's been a candidate that could break through party loyalties in an extraordinary manner. But then again Trump is going to get all those Bernie supporters.

Meh. I predict Hillary will win by a landslide. Like 55%.

Share or split?

#BernieOrButts, my mans

It certainly feels like it and I think it could be even worse than that but this is certainly the strangest election of our time. Jon has commented that there is an energy behind Trump and I can't rule out her unlikeability keeping people away from the polls. But between all of the principled Republicans that can't support him and the cowards that would but are scared to be attached to him I have a hard time believing her unlikeability is going to get him elected. The alt-right is promising to destroy the Republican Party over this. Get your popcorn, boys. It's going to be one hell of a show.

Young people have no allegiance to either party because they're collectively the thing screwing us over. We have worse jobs, worse hours, worse paychecks, worse houses, worse health, work longer, work harder than the generations supporting Hillary and Trump. So it's a choice of do you literally want to start a nuclear war or do you want to start an economic dystopia. Which candidate those belong to is anyone's guess but Hillary is the better choice.

Reminder that Hillary Clinton literally is accusing Putin of secretly funding an army of racist frog pictures to help make Trump more money.

This is literally the argument most Pro-Choice people make.

So I've read a couple of times that Russia will go to war with the US if Clinton is elected.

Yeah, after decades of worse situations and more belligerent U.S. Presidents they're gonna say "bah, screw it all" this year.

The Syria business is serious!:argh:

lol

So I've been thinking deeply about this election. I've always opposed what Clinton represents. I left an open mind to Donald Trump until he convinced me not to support him. As of today I am still opposed to both candidates. One of my concerns with the Republican Party nominating Trump was that it would be highly unlikely he could defeat Clinton. I knew the media planned his death of a thousand cuts and so far as I can tell they're only about a half dozen or so into to it. I'm sure they'll squeeze them all in in the next few weeks. For the vast majority of this election I felt Trump is a guaranteed loser to Clinton.

Today I started to think about whether I should let the media get away with this. Should I not advocate that even though Trump is detestable we should not allow the media to win and procure another Clinton election? But, by that logic, shouldn't I oppose the Russian/Wikileaks attacks on the Democrat machine and Clinton by advocating for her? Well, then again, Trump isn't Clinton, right? Well, she isn't him either. This election is so bad that virtually all possible reasons to vote for one applies to the other. So far, the only possible reason I have to vote for Trump is he says he'll appoint people to the supreme court that I could support but he's extremely untrustworthy.

IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD!

I feel fine.