Yes, and that is still a college degree level position. Lets say an engineer level rather than a technician level.

No, Malthusian predictions tend to fail due to humans using technology to support larger populations. Fertilizer manufacturing of the late 19th century for example.

Senator Joe "I have a list of communists in my pocket" McCarthy.

Actually the H1B law does requires the position to require a college degree. It's part of the qualification for the program, additional qualifications for the job are something else.

Which the law defines as a college degree.

The letter of the H1B law says its for when qualified domestic workers cannot be found and that the pay cannot be lower than a qualified domestic worker. So yes, H1B is routinely abused, not complied with by law nor by spirit.

Except they are excluding the companies found abusing the system, in turn leaving the companies complying with the rules alone. Complying with the H1B program as enacted by Congress is neither favoritism nor corruption. Quite the opposite actually.

Ah, you are new here aren't you. :-)

No, a dirt cheap amazon firestick will work with a shared amazon household account. So only one household member needs an account.

Well, with the Emmy's leaving broadcast for Amazon, broadcast is getting better and Amazon worse. :-)

What abuse are you referring to? Disagreement?

Nope. What I want to enable is disagreement.

Nope, no one wants real, actual abuse.

Please try to state what it is you actually mean by abuse, it seems an empty intentionally vague word in your usage.

Not a republican, not a Trump supporter. Those are just your bad guesses, you trying to map things into your incredibly simplistic world view.

Thank you for outing yourself as a complete idiot.

Not all fears are unfounded. Say a national leadership chanting "death to america" for 47 years.

Actually, they are typically in uniform. The masks are due to doxxing and threats against family. Unmarked vehicles are common. Are some undertrained or lacking a proper law enforcement temperament, sure. No law enforcement agency catches all the unsuitable applicants, and the faster they grow the more unsuitable slip through. Such a failure does not change the validity of the mission. More importantly, the people being arrested actually committed a crime. Unlike actual fascism where criticizing the party can get you arrested.

Most of it is OK. Some things mistaken. For example "Any fascist attempt to gain power in America would not use the exact Hitler pattern. It would work under the guise of "super-patriotism" and "super-Americanism."" No, its not that simple. Firstly, appeals to patriotism and americanism are not exclusively a tool of fascists, non fascists can use those too. Secondly, Americanism is not your typical nationalism or culture. It is multicultural in nature, religious pluralist in nature, etc. In short, the "melting pot". An improved version of the author's statement would be under the guise of "super-moralism", of which "super-nationalism" is a possible implementation for a more homogeneous society. Plus there are both healthy and unhealthy manifestations of nationalism. The American men who destroyed fascism in 1945 were not lacking in strong nationalistic feelings. The more general point the author was trying to get at is moralism, in particular where the morally correct is defined by the party. This morality provides the rationalization for political violence.

Another example of a mistaken point would be "Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance". Again an oversimplification, what is really at work here is trust in the party. The indifference and ignorance are largely a result of this trust. The indifferent and ignorance designed by the party to achieve party goals. The solution to such ignorance is skepticism, even of your own party, even of people you like. Information indicating your team is in error on a particular topic often comes from the other team. Hence the demonization, the desired result being to ignore different opinion, maybe even attempt to silence them.

With respect to my earlier comment, "You'll have to be clearer since both political extremes are calling the other nazis and such", much of the article's claims could be equally applied to both the far left and far right. Divide and conquer, scapegoats, super-moralism, intolerance for competing views, bigotry, etc.

If you don't like them that's fine, its the ban them from campus stuff that indicates the fragility and intolerance.

With respect to beating up on trans people, what is often considered punching is in many cases disagreeing. Again, we're really talking about an intolerance for disagreement.

He didn't say "everybody" wins.
He specifically says quite the opposite.
"it’s a bit like taking down the primary bull in a large herd. It’s messy, painful, chaotic, disruptive and brutal, but the end result is a healthier herd."

You can dispute whether that end result is true, but his comment did not make any claim that this kind of activity benefits current individual customers.