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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.



His proposal adds 300 miles to the 700 already passed and approved by Congress in 2006. If more people actually were learned on the history of "The Wall" I believe some stances may change, but alas, the only "news" 80% of the US actually hears is from their social media platforms....who cares about history though right?




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.


All I hear is Cali should bend over from president trump now that the Repubs are in charge.

Cali and Texas are huge states rights leaders, the midwest in general is the only states even defending the constitution. Your surprise is underwhelming they're telling the feds to go jump off bridges



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I think conservatives and Republicans should be open in their dishonesty and hypocrisy that desperately portrays States taking steps against a Federal political act by using a political act as discrimination.

Let's just tell the truth here, eh?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

exactly,

This isn`t even a slippery slope this is jumping off a cliff, the repercussions from this will be immediate and huge.

This is what WILL happen next,
in some states any company that has ever built an abortion clinic or provided supplies and services to an abortion clinic will be banned from government contracts.
in some states, any company that has ever built a church or provided services or supplies to a church will be banned from government contracts.

in some states any venue that has hosted a republican convention or event will be banned from government contracts and business.
in some states any venue that has hosted a democrat convention or event will be banned from government contracts and business.

this isn`t about states rights because there are people of every political belief living in every state, this is about the governments of states discriminating against the citizens of their states based on the political beliefs. of those citizens.

construction companies aren`t owned by the federal government and aren`t a part of the federal government so this isn`t about a states rights verses the federal governments rights.
This is about state governments discriminating against it`s citizens based on political affiliation or beliefs.

look at it this way, would it be OK for a state government to ban a construction company from state contracts if that company was ever involved in building housing projects for minorities?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's not at all what he says. He said (do you need the quote) that he would build a Great Wall along the whole southern border up to 55 ft high made of steel and concrete.

Are you saying that Mr. Trump doesn't understand his own proposal?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
There is already a wall in California half way across the state right at the border. These bureaucrats in California must have the IQ's of fence posts if they can't see their own wall.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I think conservatives and Republicans should be open in their dishonesty and hypocrisy that desperately portrays States taking steps against a Federal political act by using a political act as discrimination.

Let's just tell the truth here, eh?


So if Trump only finished the 700 miles already approved by the aforementioned senators, that would be ok right?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Exactly.


Basically the state of California is saying, "If you support Trump's immigration policy, you will not be awarded any contract from the state".



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's not at all what he says. He said (do you need the quote) that he would build a Great Wall along the whole southern border up to 55 ft high made of steel and concrete.

Are you saying that Mr. Trump doesn't understand his own proposal?


Oh...so it's the making it taller part that you're opposed to? I figured it was the making it longer part. My apologies.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, you're missing the point. The USA thinks it runs things, and as long as it thinks it can control us, individual states will stand up like Texas and Cali and say no effng way.

You want to know the first thing that happens if Cali or Texas succeed? The other would succeed with it; and Nevada, Washington, AND Colorado. That's how much back they have when they say "we're out" so acting like EITHER of their opinions is pointless/worthless is WRONG. Texas would sooner TAKE California than deal with the Eastern Liberal. So in conclusion- huge problem America, the states where the wall goes hate Government. A lot. Wut do? We basically voted to light Nevada on fire in comparison to how much intervention they like to deal with.
edit on 27-4-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Pretty standard liberal garbage. "We complain about what we do ten times more of." So, not wanting to do a job because it conflicts with your religious freedoms is wrong, but denying work to someone else just because you don't like their.... I'm not sure... taking a contract doesn't necessarily reflect ones personal views, so... just denying work to someone because you don't like them. I think co derivatives should flip the table. If you're NOT taking a conservative enough stance they should send you death threats in the mail, show up at your work and yell until the employer has no choice but to fire them.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Mordekaiser

No. I understand what California is doing.

I was quite succinct in my description.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sigh, then why is the Feds, after winning, poking the States Rights States. Wtf. This is why we voted for him.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Mordekaiser

Should states be allowed to discriminate?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

to the utmost extent. I'm surprised Indians haven't taken one in this modern time despite their love of original locations. /s What else is States Rights; but an honor system?
edit on 27-4-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

State's rights are a great thing, but this is not an example of state's rights, this is an example of a state abusing its presumed power in order to promote a political agenda, and I would argue that it is an unconstitutional act that will never stand up to judicial scrutiny if passed.

What those of us against such a bill have a problem with is tyrannical legislation, not state's rights. Let's not purposefully confuse the two in order to incite emotional responses.

The funny thing is, the construction industry employs a LOT of immigrant labor (both legal and illegal), so to bar construction companies future state contracts for work if they work on the wall is to deny many immigrants the work that they generally came here to find. Nice job painting yourselves into a corner, California legislators. It demonstrates these legislators' recurring inability to think beyond the ideological issue that is sitting in front of them--they don't understand the concept of the bigger picture.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



State's rights are a great thing, but this is not an example of state's rights, this is an example of a state abusing its presumed power in order to promote a political agenda, and I would argue that it is an unconstitutional act that will never stand up to judicial scrutiny if passed.


I don't see how this is any different that the Federal Government allowing states to deny state and federal Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to individuals and facilities that accommodate the full spectrum of legal and Constitutionally protected women's health and reproductive services.



The funny thing is, the construction industry employs a LOT of immigrant labor (both legal and illegal), so to bar construction companies future state contracts for work if they work on the wall is to deny many immigrants the work that they generally came here to find. Nice job painting yourselves into a corner, California legislators.


That's ridiculous! There are plenty of construction companies that will be available to get the job done. The same amount of workers will be needed and employed and will be paid the same amount whether or not their parent company is vying to build Trump's ill conceived wall.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

Did you take that stance in regard to Arizona's moves to enforce the laws in their own state concerning illegal aliens?


I'm not a great advocate for States Rights or local determination when it contravenes our rights as Americans.

However, I'm not the OP here, who IS on the record as supporting such.

Swing and a miss, Butch.

So where do you stand on it here?
I wasn't swinging or missing.
I was asking where you stand on the matter.
Now that you have stated that you are not a big advocate of states rights, do you agree with what the California Democrats are proposing here?
edit on b000000302017-04-27T09:26:13-05:0009America/ChicagoThu, 27 Apr 2017 09:26:13 -0500900000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: DBCowboy
You want to know the first thing that happens if Cali or Texas succeed? The other would succeed with it; and Nevada, Washington, AND Colorado. That's how much back they have when they say "we're out" so acting like EITHER of their opinions is pointless/worthless is WRONG. Texas would sooner TAKE California than deal with the Eastern Liberal.


As a Texan, I have to point out that:
* the secessionist movement is actually very small and not well supported
* the secessionists have been trying to separate us for the last 150 years (haven't yet)
* the state is turning more liberal - and Austin liberals are pretty much in tune with the East and West coast
* Ft. Worth is getting fairly liberal and Dallas is loosening up. Houston and San Antonio are also pretty liberal.

I don't see us leaving. I *do* see us kicking up a heck of a fuss, though, because we've got the people and the power to do so.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tardacus

Basically the state of California is saying, "If you support Trump's immigration policy, you will not be awarded any contract from the state".


It's actually not unusual for a state to withdraw funding from a project that is against its political ideology (see the recent and ongoing kerfuffle over Texas and Planned Parenthood.) And that's hardly the first time this has happened across America.

This may be the first time that people new to the political experience are reading about this, but it goes on all the time.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join