Having conducted many tech interviews over the past 17 years, in high demand markets, I can say that the number of qualified candidates in the US is abysmally low compared to the open positions. There are lots of people with degrees in CS or a similar field, but the ones who can actually do the job at the level required is very low. If we find someone who can code well enough to do the work, we don't care how much pigmentation it has, what it's genitals look like, what gods it reveres (if any), or any of that other crap.

The imports are absolutely necessary to keep American companies competitive in a global market. Otherwise the 21st century tech centers will be in south or east Asia, along with all the profits, high paying jobs, and resulting tax revenue.

And what Jesse wants is money for his group, or to be on the news. He's a person who used to have power, and is now completely irrelevant. He's desperately clinging to anything he can.

So rather than asking why there aren't more blacks in tech, and addressing those issues (which mostly center on the welfare state and drug war destroying black culture), Jesse is going to pretend to still be relevant by trying to get racial hiring quotas in the tech industry. Oh joy...
Racism against minorities is about as common in the US as polio (both exist only due to small pockets of people who ignore reason and logic). Jesse needs to keep fanning the flames on anything he can. Otherwise he'd have to get a productive job...like the white, Indian, and Chinese techies he wants to get fired.
How come Jesse isn't concerned with the lack of diversity in professional basketball?

That's absolutely false. A democracy is a majority rules system. A republic is a system where the government is limited in the powers it can exercise.

The founding fathers of the US knew the difference. Most of them despised the idea of democracy, because they knew it would devolve into corruption.

I've been a supporter of the super-majority requirement for a while (or better yet, the super-duper-majority: 80% or more). It's easy to get 80% of people (hopefully more like 99.999%) to agree murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, etc. are bad. It would be impossible to get 80% to agree to slavery, unjust wars, NSA spying, the Patriot [sic] Act, taxes for wealth redistribution (most of which in the US goes to the über rich banking and corporate crony crowd, not the poor), and other statist dreams.

Another useful trick would be automatic sunset clauses, e.g. every law expires after five years. And the sunset period could be limited by the support gained. E.g. if 60% approve, it lasts a year, if 70%, 2 years, etc.

I also propose the ability to remove bad laws easily (one of the problems we have in the US, e.g. repealing the 1934 National Firearms Act): Repealing a law should consist of proposing the exact law again, but if it fails to pass at any stage, it should not only fail to extend the law, but it should immediately repeal the existing instance of that law.

I never said it is a republic, I said supposed to be. It is a fascist, crony-laden representative democracy. It is the system Alexander Hamilton, and later the whigs and early republicans, dreamed of.

I am not any form of government, I am a human. The government that claims dominion over the land where I live and spend most of my days abandoned being an oligarchy long ago, it is now becoming a fascist police state. But then authoritarianism of one form or another is always the end state for any government.

Ours did hold out for almost two centuries though, which is more than most. Hopefully the growing mistrust of the people toward the TSA, NSA, IRS, ATF, ACA, CIA, FRB, and all the other acronyms of evil (AOE?) will cause a push from statism back toward liberty.

I'm surprised anybody found out. I bet a bunch of people showed up at the office the next day asking, "Where's Vic? It looks like he cleaned out his office."

The US isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's a republic.

In a democracy, majorities can impose their will on minorities, no matter how stupid, or evil their ideas. In a republic, the constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government.

Unfortunately though, this is exactly what a representative democracy turns into: as long as the corrupt politician can convince 51% of his buddies to vote for his boondoggle (usually by promising to vote for theirs in return), it passes.

This isn't unusual, nor should it be unexpected. Regulatory agencies are there to provide advantages for the established companies over upstart competitors and their customers. The stories about working for the interests of the consumer are just what the politicians tell voters, as they take money from politically connected companies, to create bureaucracies that further the interests of those companies.
It's how a fascist (a.k.a. mercantilist, cronyist) economy works.

The goldbugs are students of History. As long as we've been writing stuff down, gold has always been the most stable store for wealth. Period.

Gold appears to be rarer based on what I saw on wikipedia, but I could be wrong.

But in either case, rhenium is hard to extract, refine, and work. Gold is easy to extract, refine, and work, so its value has never been dependent on technology. An excellent example of this is aluminum. It was very expensive, even though it's very common, due to refining costs. That's why the Washington monument has an aluminum tip. To be a good money metal, the production cost can't include any significant amount that technology can improve. The costs should consist of: find it (hard), mine it (fairly simple), melt it (easy), and shape it (easy).

Gold, silver, and platinum are the money metals because they have properties that lend themselves to coining, but there might be some convention to it (palladium would be a good choice too, but it never caught on for whatever reason).

I would think that someone who has claimed "history" and "reality" as sources would be aware that since humans began recording history, gold has remained fairly steady in its value compared to other valuable goods. And that in times of crisis (financial, political, social, etc.), people have sought refuge in gold.

You do make a good point that gold is only valuable because it's rare and people seem to want it, but that desire seems consistent enough that it's the most stable way to store wealth that humans have figured out yet.

Because if it was a coup, then the US government couldn't give the Egyptian government $1B+ each year to buy weapons from US manufacturers, that they then use to maintain their coup...er...democracy. Corporate welfare is very important. You wouldn't want to see those rich industrialists out on the street would you?

Do they still broadcast TV shows?

Really? Why would they do that when they can just seed them on bittorrent?

They'll still only put three episodes on each disc, so you have to buy the big box set for $99.99, and then go change the disk every couple of hours during a marathon.