It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Deny Work to Conservative Businesses

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Imagine getting money for nothing thats what the denied companies will get for being discriminated against.

A long California tradition of money for nothing.





posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You think it's discrimination to disagree with a political agenda?


Can we all vote to set Nevada on fire? If Nevada refuses with majority vote, we'll call them racists.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: windword

So you think that it is okay to discriminate based on political ideology.




I don't think this qualifies as "discrimination". Those are your words, that your trying to put in my mouth. Discrimination requires violating one's civil rights. I don't see that being the case here.

What I do see is a lot of hypocrisy and confusion when it comes to States' Rights and Civil Rights.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Forget about "Gay rights" or "walls" ... they are immaterial to the implications of these actions.

Forget about "states rights" vs "federal power" ... it doesn't matter if the state of CA has the lawful right to take these actions or if they don't; again this debate is immaterial to the implications of these actions.

When you wash all of that above noise away, what you have here is a political party pushing even further the partisan divide in this country... now in a very scary manner.

Now (at least in CA if thess bills pass) businesses are obligated to choose which political party they align them selves with ... and if they choose a party that some day finds itself out of power they could loose their livelihoods. ... this is certainly a step down the road to fascism.

Foget about partisan divide in people's every day opinions and ideas. Now people will have to set their current opinions in stone if they plan to do business with or around the government.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
This is from the OP:



In California, Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday advanced a measure to bar the state from awarding contracts to any company involved in the wall’s construction, while a bill to prevent the state’s massive pension funds from investing in those companies stands pending. Lawmakers introduced similar measures in New York and Rhode Island. The city of San Francisco is considering a blacklist, and Berkeley adopted one last month.


You can't argue that California, etc. is involved in a political act in opposing the construction of "the wall" unless you're willing to admit that the construction of "the wall" in itself is a political act.

The measures (which are proposals, btw) are directed against a specific action ... not against the presumed political positions of the contractors ...

... you guys really just don't think these things out, do you?


Of course it's a political act. It's called the Secure Fence Act 2006. Obama, Clinton and Schumer all voted FOR it to be built. I love the irony that this brings up seeing that Trump wasn't even in politics back then.

So to recap, because Trump wants to finish a wall that passed in Congress 80/19, he is the bad guy....got it.

80/19....let that sink in for a bit....



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: DBCowboy

You think it's discrimination to disagree with a political agenda?



I never said that.

I think it's discrimination to deny contracts or services based on ones political ideology.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

But the contract itself is politically based, so you kind of skip that important detail. Employers don't get to choose qualifications? Does it make sense rejecting a Democrat to work for Trumps advising team? Is that discrimination?
edit on 27-4-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



So to recap, because Trump wants to finish a wall that passed in Congress 80/19, he is the bad guy....got it.


LOL!

Yeah, I remember all those rallies where people were chanting "Finish that Fence!"



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: DBCowboy

But the contract itself is politically based, so you kind of skip that important detail. Employers don't get to choose qualifications? Does it make sense rejecting a Democrat to work for Trumps advising team? Is that discrimination?


So you agree that California is basing awarding contracts on political ideology.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: DBCowboy

You think it's discrimination to disagree with a political agenda?



I never said that.

I think it's discrimination to deny contracts or services based on ones political ideology.



You keep repeating this.

Was the Federal government only going to give Great Wall contracts to Republicans? I haven't seen anything to that effect, anywhere.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: DISRAELI

Conservatives boycott everything already, they fail at understanding organization is a crucial part of a boycott. They also don't understand exposure is supposed to help bring those to your cause, but they're normally so nasty no one joins them an it's ineffective. Behaving like a cult won't get them far anyway, it should be obvious that knee-jerk type reaction is childish to try to crush your local countries economy.


Sounds a lot like CA, specifically UC...Coulter ring a bell? Violent protests and the like...nasty is an understatement when it comes to liberal ideology and protests.

I say let every single business that supports the wall just go ahead and preemptively cut CA off. They'd be eating their words very quickly. Somebody needs to put the whining child out to pasture for a bit to learn a lesson.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you know what, you made me realize something, it isnt states rights in this sense because illegal immigration through california effects the whole nation at the federal level, that is UNLESS, we build the damn wall around california, which honestly is probably a better idea anyway.

thanks!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You keep repeating this.


Because it's true.


Was the Federal government only going to give Great Wall contracts to Republicans? I haven't seen anything to that effect, anywhere.


That's because it would be discrimination if they did that.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You're saying that Trump is merely going to finish the work of the Secure Fence Act?

That's not what he says.

His "Great Wall" is entirely different because apparently, what we already have is ... non-existent, since his claim is that the US has done nothing to protect our borders, prior to his advent of course.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, but I would agree that contracts with political slant in the first place are treated as accordingly,

you might not care to separate 'all contracts' from 'the wall' but there IS a difference.

You would PREFER the GOVERNMENT GETS TO CHOOSE how states handle contracts? Or that California should have the rights to make their own choices?

Yes, get pissed off at California to limit us all again.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe



So to recap, because Trump wants to finish a wall that passed in Congress 80/19, he is the bad guy....got it.


LOL!

Yeah, I remember all those rallies where people were chanting "Finish that Fence!"





Oh no...chanting hurts my fragile body, so I must react by violence and not allowing anyone to speak for fear they will further crush my world....please spare me.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Nope, I wasn't speaking about CA. Conservatives just generally boycott things they dislike, for a multitude of reasons, without ever considering even all the factors or if their efforts are effective verses inconvenient.

In my time in Texas, I met people that boycotted a variety of things, for the most random reasons ever, and not only are their efforts completely in vain, it's a trivial detail to them they hold little conviction. It's conversation fodder for when one person talks about what they boycott, they have something they boycott too. Neither even attempts to convince the other to join them. To call it boycotting compared to traditional ideas is hilarious.
edit on 27-4-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Some of you are desperately trying to gloss over the fact that there is no suggestion anywhere that only Republican/Conservative companies would be used to built Trump's Great Wall.

That's the only case in which there would be discrimination. You think moderates and liberals wouldn't take advantage of the biggest Federal boondoggle in history?

Pfft.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe



So to recap, because Trump wants to finish a wall that passed in Congress 80/19, he is the bad guy....got it.


LOL!

Yeah, I remember all those rallies where people were chanting "Finish that Fence!"





Oh no...chanting hurts my fragile body, so I must react by violence and not allowing anyone to speak for fear they will further crush my world....please spare me.


Whatever Dude! Trump didn't run on "Finishing the Fence"! Stop deflecting and take responsibility for your posts!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser

You would PREFER the GOVERNMENT GETS TO CHOOSE how states handle contracts? Or that California should have the rights to make their own choices?


I think California should be open in their discrimination and to stop trying to bullsh#t people into thinking it's anything but.




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join