Democrats Deny Work to Conservative Businesses

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey

States have the right to choose how to spend their own funds. Yes or no?

Yes, but only in accordance with the constitution, and they can't block private companies from bidding on projects just because they worked on a different, separate project funded by non-state entities.

You can argue against the reality that this is corrupt politicizing of non-political issues (bids on state construction jobs), but you're not support your argument in any logical way.

It's not as black-and-white as answering "yes" or "no," and you know that.

States can use taxpayer dollars to gamble at in-state casinos, yes or no? Or to go to strip clubs? I mean, it's their money to choose how they spend it, correct? I mean, there are no legal limitations, right? Discriminatory practices concerning accepting government contract bids are always appropriate and acceptable ways for a government to do business, right? Even if maybe there is no specified law stating otherwise, you're okay with that?

Your argument reminds me of all of those liberals when Obama was in officer who applauded the expansion of power that he enjoyed over his eight years, but now that Trump is in office, a president shouldn't have such powers.

Consistency matters. See, I'm against corruption like this across the board. You can disagree, and that's fine, but your illogical arguments trying to show me that this behavior by a state legislator is okay is going to continue to fail.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if that mattered all the time you would be against what CAlifornia is trying to do.

Instead I see someone defending AUTHORITARIANISM.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

States can't decide they don't want to work with a contractor based on their previous work?

I guess we'll see.

You're trying to claim a whole series of fallacies, but here's the meat: you feel that States deciding how to govern the expenditure of their own funds is wrong, because they choose (if any of this had become law which of course it hasn't) not to work with certain contractors based on their previous work.

Your definition of the word "corrupt" is "doesn't agree with my politics." Sorry, if anyone in the situation is known for duplicity in construction hiring ... it's Mr. Trump.

You can keep tossing red herring in all you want ... it reminds you of this, what I'm really saying is that.

The fact here is that Donald Trump's need to build a Great Wall in his honor (which is what this is all about) and that he apparently has some support in Congress to do so is being opposed by several sovereign States who still have the right to spend their own tax dollars as their legislatures see fit.

The rest of what you're spewing is smoke.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if that mattered all the time you would be against what CAlifornia is trying to do.

Instead I see someone defending AUTHORITARIANISM.

Every government is authoritarian Neo.

Next?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not when it is is direct violation of the US constitution.

You've lost this argument.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That same piece of paper that gives a newspaper the RIGHT to print whatever they want.

Sets precedent for a business to do business HOWEVER they see fit.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Oops.

Let's try again.

A business can do anything it wants to?

Sure it can. Within legal limits, a business can do whatever it likes. (It's not a Constitutional right but still)

A State can also choose not to hire a contractor based on what it has done in the past. See the Tenth Amendment.

You're not making a lot of sense.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

You support authoritarian governments amd institutionalized discrimination?

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

You support authoritarian governments amd institutionalized discrimination?

All governments are authoritarian, so it doesn't really matter if I support it or not.

I do not support institutionalized discrimination.

I can't help but feel you think you're being cagey or witty here ... why not just come out and say something?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oops.

Let's try again.

A business can do anything it wants to?

Sure it can. Within legal limits, a business can do whatever it likes. (It's not a Constitutional right but still)

A State can also choose not to hire a contractor based on what it has done in the past. See the Tenth Amendment.

You're not making a lot of sense.

No a business cannot do anything it wants and can't discriminate base on gender, age, race and hopefully political ideology.

Bunch of children in CA how about hiring the best company who will help make you and your employees the most money.

Probably why CA is broke

Bottom line: any border state that does not want to accept its responsibility to secure its section of the INTERNATIONAL BORDER of the nation which it is a part of, should be absolutely walled off and cut off, period. No border security, NO NATION!!! ANYONE who believes otherwise had better learn from history or be forever branded a FOOL!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

A states rights end when they infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness according to the constitution. And blacklisting people based on political ideas is against the rules in the constitution.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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".

It's worse than that; the CA Democrats have absolutely no knowledge regarding the political ideology of the contractors or if they are in support of any policy or person.

All they know is that a company choose to do business with a current government body and they are seeking to punish them for it.

There can be many situations where a company may not agree with a given policy and still take a contract associated with it.

For example I heard a radio interview about government contractor who put in a proposal to design and build the wall . He was a Hispanic immigrant and was not in favor of the wall. His reason to try and win the project was so that he could be a positive force in its design. Make sure that the safty of the immigrants who encountered it was the number one priority. If it had to be built he was mortally bound to make sure the project was compaiontiont and he did not trust those in favor of the wall to make sure that it was.

The Democrats would seek to punish this business, not because of his political ideology, but because he would not do their bidding. ... that is how you get to Fascism.



It doesn't matter that the state has a right to act in this manner. This is the noise they want us to be caught up in. What matters is whether it will hurt our country... and I can't see how it couldn't.

a reply to: JDmOKI

Calling people names that you disagree with is logically fallacious.

One legislator has introduced a bill, yet, all this hue and cry and political nonsense ensues over nothing.

California is not broke by any stretch of even the right-wing imagination..

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

A states rights end when they infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness according to the constitution. And blacklisting people based on political ideas is against the rules in the constitution.

First of all, CA hasn't infringed on anything.

Second, how does refusing to hire someone based on past job performance infringe on their rights again?

Third, there is no "right" to life, liberty and happiness in the Constitution ... you're thinking of the Declaration.

You're thinking of a phrase in Amendment V: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

They're not blacklisted because of their political beliefs, they'd be blacklisted because of their job history.

a reply to: yuppa

They aren't banning them because of their political ideology. Anyone can help build the wall, even liberal businesses. Are you actually implying that only Republican businesses are going to be helping build that wall???

All that said ... what a stupid idea.

i'm pretty sure CA could put anyone on a do not hire list legally ... but it's stupid.

If Congress goes along with Trumps insane idea here ... then that is sadly the stupidity of our duly elected government.

The only thing something like this would do is push a greater wedge between Americans.

In my opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a problem with States Rights and local determination?

Hmmm.

A states rights end when they infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness according to the constitution. And blacklisting people based on political ideas is against the rules in the constitution.

First of all, CA hasn't infringed on anything.

Second, how does refusing to hire someone based on past job performance infringe on their rights again?



They're not blacklisted because of their political beliefs, they'd be blacklisted because of their job history.

California will be infringing on rights. Freedom of association is implied by the Bill of rights, and there are court precedents affirming as much. California is basically doing away with the right of freedom of association here. And your argument for job performance is ridiculous. Stop it already. Before I close, might I remind you that we are all guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment. How is disqualifying a corporation, which has the same rights as an individual, providing equal. Protection? The only thing California will accomplish n this hissy fit is wasting large amounts of taxpayer dollars in legal fees.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

That's a stretch. Doing work for someone doesn't fall under "assembly" which is the basis of the "right to association."

Why don't you provide us with the precedents?

The Fourteenth Amendment? I'd like to see your argument for that other than merely saying it's so.

The definition of fascism is using socioeconomic pressure against people to create the desired politics.

I fail to see how this isn't fitting of that definition.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Very simple. The right for employees to form labor unions and negotiate with governments for contracts, and employ lobbyists to further their cause with taxpayer funding is protected. This is protected EVEN IF IT GOES AGAINST THE PUBLIC WILL AND INTEREST. This really isn't much different.