Michael Hardner

Also

1. Don't blame Trump. He wanted quick action on immigration and delivered that. (And I don't believe I seem to be defending him but here we are). The thing is if you're going to make a bunch of omelettes then eggs will be broken. People deported mistakenly, etc. So that's part of this. If you blame him then you're blaming his policy which I doubt is your intention. The Visa system is complicated and fuzzy. You can't expect ICE to be right 100% of the time. 2. That takes a long time and he's saddled with decades of past policy on that. 3. And here I am helping you out, to continue loving Trump.... what a great guy I am... Yeah, but we had a bit of a mutual understanding there... ICE is designed to be fast, not accurate.

1. And most of them appear to have had VISAs are are returning to South Korea. It's a setback for Hyundai which was working within the Trump plan. My take is that it was an error. 2. I think the construction workers who were busted would need to be replaced by Americans but the Koreans will likely be replaced by other Koreans, just with the right VISA. 3. Well, yeah, you don't care. That's obvious. What doesn't make sense is why you're talking with me, then. Let me fix that... 🤔

1. That doesn't answer the question to figure out what happened here though. 2. Yes and that is what Hyundai is doing. Feels like we're not on the same page with this part of the discussion.

How would a deep dive into this incident answer THAT question now ? The plant isn't even open yet. Non-sequitur.

What ? The joke ? Tough crowd.... 🤨

1. I'm sure it would be easy to cite sources, including the White House Press, that frames the story differently. The point is: we don't have to do that on here. We can go to primary sources, as well as the aforementioned sources and piece together something that makes more sense. 2. People can read into my methods what they will. I don't know who respects me and who doesn't. 3. I myself have TDS ! Only paxamericana acknowledged my admission/joke !

My point is that it was hard to figure out what was going on. For example, the title of the thread would lead one to believe that the factory was operational. I thought that too when I heard the initial report. If you travel to the US for professional work, as I have, there are various visas that you are supposed to get. When you were asked at the border why you or visiting the US... Business or pleasure.... You say business. Then you explain generally what you're doing. If you have a Visa they tend to let you pass. At least they used to. But what you do when you get there can be a little fuzzy according to what the Visa is. You're doing training? Are you allowed to operate the machine training on? Generally, nobody checks. But if there is an ICE then that's a different thing. But I also don't think this is going to have an impact on the onshoring process for this factory or generally. After all, Hyundai is doing exactly what the US government wants them to do.

https://apnews.com/article/us-south-korea-ice-raid-georgia-hyundai-ee8781d965c74a5ee18525ce87959ba4 From what I've read the attorneys insist that contractors had papers. And 300 are being let go. I think they were targeting the construction workers building the plant.

I suspect that the administration is apologizing behind the scenes. After all, Hyundai was doing what they want them to do: onshoring. How about the great US media machine eh? They really got to the bottom of the story 🤣

1. What? No way. 2. Seems like it.

I don't think that it's actually a big deal. I have an answer to what this was but it's unverified.

Actually... Does this even make sense? 🤔 We need a deep dive...

I noticed. Here's a graph. Trickle-Down economics was launched as a way to attract investors back to Western markets. It worked in some ways but not for everyone. https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-country/usa/

1. Yes. 2. Also yes. 3. Yes again. 4. 5. Yes 6. Yes, and I wouldn't want to do that. 7. Yes. What Nationalist and I agree on is that editorials should not be published AS scientific papers. The evidence provided above in the thread, has the publisher specifically stating that their paper is a distortion (my word) of what science papers usually do. It would be like me posting a science paper that says "Cake tastes good". But all the points I highlighted I also agree with.

1. But fighting, denying, and not listening to others' points makes it a noise forum rather than a discussion forum. 2. Only if you aren't dealing with a troll though.

1. Except for that new one, yes. 2. Not really - we haven't looked at that in detail but the record temperature levels points to continued areas of concern. 3. Well, no. I have a life so I'm not looking at these every day or every week. I did agree without that the so-called paper that was cited was framed incorrectly. I don't think there's any argument between us on this thread.

I already stated what I agree with. The second sentence is different, and more broad. "Scientific community" is hard to pin down. Individuals can, in a professional context, declare that we are in crisis. Nothing wrong with that, and their points can be disputed. But scientific papers are a specific thing and have specific rules.

1. Here is a copy/paste of my points in this thread: I didn't say 'science' or scientists don't use the term. I stated that published scientific papers shouldn't be used for opinion/editorial. 2. As I suspected.

Nor All Gore, nor Greta Thunberg...

1. That's an apples and oranges comparison. 2. They're a global health organization, not the same as what I was talking about. Scientists publish papers, they are reviewed by peers, and then they find their way into the public sphere which includes global health institutions like the WHO, And NGOs. I'm still wondering: Do you think that scientific papers should be used to publish opinions? Now I'm thinking you think that's a bad idea, as do I.

1. You think that scientific papers should be used to express OPINIONS of a political nature? That's a big change in how issues are discussed.

I don't know if you can call it inertia, given that they 've actively pursued a policy of drastic population increase.

Indeed they may publish, as they call, "Conceptual paper arguing for pragmatism in crisis public health policymaking.". I don't think it's the right place for it. So I stand by my point on that. And I assume you agree.

Whether or not it's a peer-reviewed source: 1. Single paper does not " destroy " anything, or Friis-Christensen would have destroyed climate change already in the 1990s. 2. It's not up to science to determine if something is a crisis. That's in the public sphere, because crisis is not an objective term.