Vetoes can be overridden by Congress, though Republicans will have to vote with Democrats since the Democrats don't have a significant enough majority. And many of the surviving Republicans are going to have to evaluate how safe they feel given the recent election. Do they continue to fail their constituents and risk losing in 2028 to kowtow to a lame duck president, or do they actually do something worthwhile for their salaries and the trust that's been given to them.
Let Trump veto a minimum-wage increase, the ACA premium, a war-powers resolution and an Epstein bill. Then let Republicans defend not overriding it. That will deliver a Democrat trifecta in 2028.
Isn't it kind of patriarchal to say that people in the third world shouldn't do jobs that they choose to do, because people in the first world think it's too exploitative? Give them tools that let them connect to other workers and organize, sure, but I think we should respect their autonomy to take the jobs they want to take.
I don't see how your reply connects with what the parent said. But to your point, I don't think anyone in this conversation specifically claimed anything about workers of the third world needing to be prevented from taking these jobs, but rather how they're universally harmful to the human mind.
This could imply banning the industry, but since most agree it's necessary, most would probably be in favor of psychological counciling and greater pay for these workers.
The point is we're subjecting desperate people to trauma before limited to first responders, police, and military, while providing them none of the pay, job security, or counciling of these above specialities.
Not really - studies have linked these jobs to severe phycological distress. They aren't "good jobs" in the sense that "software developer" is a good job. They're actively harmful to the person's mental well-being.
>but I think we should respect their autonomy to take the jobs they want to take.
You're phrasing this like third world countries have similar labor markets to the US, where anyone and anybody can go and find a high paying, "comfy" job.
Third world countries provide the convenience that first world countries like the US have come to expect. The cost of providing that "convenience" is that millions of people in India/China/Africa/Southeast Asia work for almost nothing to produce cheap crap that people buy in the US and then dispose of like it's nothing.
How is it patronizing to say "You've never worked this job and clearly have no idea if it truly is good or not"?
If anything it's patronizing to say that staring at disturbing content all day is preferable to agricultural jobs, you know, the jobs people have been working and enjoying for literally tens of thousands of years.
Don't discount disturbed land. Early successional habitat is even more biodiverse than old growth forests, and high quality early successional habitat is very rare in the south.
Is it possible that that influenced IKEA's decision to make the Skyrim mod in OP? That way, they have a stronger trademark case, because it's more likely for a consumer to confuse the fake IKEA game with the real one.
So obvious, but Argentinian government didn't see it coming. Thousands millions of dollars in damages caused by amateurs with power in Argentinian government.
Another example: Beavers are native from Sweden, but beavers on Sweden should be removed.
reply