Remember me
▼ Content

Trump Skips another Climate Change Meeting With World Leaders...



Page 2 of 3<123>
29-09-2019 23:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
VernerHornung wrote:Mr. Trump doesn't pay his bills.
I know someone personally who did work for Trump and he stiffed them on payment. Not part of bankruptcy or anything he just didn't want to pay the bill. No excuse given.

IBdaMann wrote:Domestic Islamic terrorism isn't a major problem under Trump,
It never was under any president. If you need to go look up the stats. Neo Nazis have been more of a problem but even that is a minor issue.

HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And to be candid I don't agree illegal immigration is a major problem

Really? ...Even the House democrats agreed last spring, that there was an illegal immigration problem.
Of course it's a problem. So are illegal left turns and counterfeit cologne. I'm just saying it's not a "major" problem.

I think it's biggest impact is on worker rights as you have a large population that have no rights at all competing in the economy. But again, minor issue. Also not a new one for the US. We expereince this exact same senario with the same reaction 100 years ago.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
30-09-2019 00:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: There's still this from before he was elected.

... yet Donald Trump was elected as though it were a nothing-burger. That's because to any reasonable person, it is a nothing burger.

If you were to ask any rock star his opinion about ability to get groupies, what would you expect the response to be?

If you were to ask any insanely rich dude how tough it is for him to get a date, what do you think the response will be?


... so how is Trump supposed to be different? Please, I'd like to know.


.



Just shows what a sh1thole the US has become.
30-09-2019 00:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:Mr. Trump doesn't pay his bills.
I know someone personally who did work for Trump and he stiffed them on payment. Not part of bankruptcy or anything he just didn't want to pay the bill. No excuse given.

IBdaMann wrote:Domestic Islamic terrorism isn't a major problem under Trump,
It never was under any president. If you need to go look up the stats. Neo Nazis have been more of a problem but even that is a minor issue.

HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And to be candid I don't agree illegal immigration is a major problem

Really? ...Even the House democrats agreed last spring, that there was an illegal immigration problem.
Of course it's a problem. So are illegal left turns and counterfeit cologne. I'm just saying it's not a "major" problem.

I think it's biggest impact is on worker rights as you have a large population that have no rights at all competing in the economy. But again, minor issue. Also not a new one for the US. We expereince this exact same senario with the same reaction 100 years ago.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


100 years ago it wasn't primarily people from Central and South America. The rest go to college for STEM subjects that Americans aren't up for.
It's more than about immigration but people limit it to something that simple. After all, if the aquifers west of the Mississippi River go dry, not a problem.
And what crops will there be to pick? The US would basically have a growing population without the infrastructure to support it. That's if we were to consider sustainability.
The Japanese think future generations in their country will have it harder. The economy grew, life was good. Then economics caught up and their economy has been sluggish ever since.
Might happen in the US. Our debt to GDP ratio keeps climbing because government borrowing is fueling economic growth.
What happens when there's no money in the budget for water?
Everyone could just move to Florida

Edited on 30-09-2019 00:17
30-09-2019 00:31
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
tmiddles, your graphic is for LEGAL immigration, which isn't a problem. The problem, is with I L L E G A L immigration.

Do you intentionally leave out the keywords, for entertainment? I know the democrats, and the more left-leaning media have the same habit. When you intentionally leave out important details, it makes everything that follows, part of a lie. It's a lie of omission. Your credibility is quickly declining, as I tend to thing the bulk of your posts. are purely for your entertainment, waste of time to sort out the facts from fiction.
30-09-2019 00:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles, your graphic is for LEGAL immigration, which isn't a problem. The problem, is with I L L E G A L immigration.

Do you intentionally leave out the keywords, for entertainment? I know the democrats, and the more left-leaning media have the same habit. When you intentionally leave out important details, it makes everything that follows, part of a lie. It's a lie of omission. Your credibility is quickly declining, as I tend to thing the bulk of your posts. are purely for your entertainment, waste of time to sort out the facts from fiction.



Well Harvey, you basically told me that if I want to have a life, it won't happen here. I've heard that a lot despite being a Norwegian-American and a Veteran. You serve yourself, right? Why the US isn't the country it used to be. Difficult to be great when you're surrounded by your own country.
30-09-2019 00:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
James___ wrote:100 years ago it wasn't primarily people from Central and South America.


No it was catholics, German's sending their kids to learn German in school, a movement for anti hyphonates (be an "American", not a "German-American" or any other hyphonate), and it was viscoous bigotry against those low born eastern European scum as many saw it.

It led in part to prohibition as a big F-U to those hard drinking Catholics. And don't forget "Irish need not apply".

1903 source


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
30-09-2019 00:52
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:100 years ago it wasn't primarily people from Central and South America.


No it was catholics, German's sending their kids to learn German in school, a movement for anti hyphonates (be an "American", not a "German-American" or any other hyphonate), and it was viscoous bigotry against those low born eastern European scum as many saw it.

It led in part to prohibition as a big F-U to those hard drinking Catholics. And don't forget "Irish need not apply".

1903 source


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
[/quote]


I sent a woman I know a link that ranked countries by how expats have it. That's people that immigrate to a job. The US was ranked 47th. It's funny though. My mother was from Kentucky and wanted my life difficult. I think the problems she and my father had bothered her.
With current immigration problems, no diplomacy. Democrats want a path to citizenship for people illegally here while Republicans want a wall. If they found middle ground in some policy that both sides could live with, it might change some attitudes in the general population but no leadership is coming from politicians. It's always "my way or no way".
30-09-2019 01:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles, your graphic is for LEGAL immigration, which isn't a problem. The problem, is with I L L E G A L immigration.

Do you intentionally leave out the keywords, for entertainment? I know the democrats, and the more left-leaning media have the same habit. When you intentionally leave out important details, it makes everything that follows, part of a lie. It's a lie of omission. Your credibility is quickly declining, as I tend to thing the bulk of your posts. are purely for your entertainment, waste of time to sort out the facts from fiction.



Well Harvey, you basically told me that if I want to have a life, it won't happen here. I've heard that a lot despite being a Norwegian-American and a Veteran. You serve yourself, right? Why the US isn't the country it used to be. Difficult to be great when you're surrounded by your own country.


You immigrated here legal, so what's your problem? Your life, is what you make it. You are free to make all kinds of choice for yourself. You are even allowed to choose to live a miserable life, if that is what you want most...
30-09-2019 01:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:100 years ago it wasn't primarily people from Central and South America.


No it was catholics, German's sending their kids to learn German in school, a movement for anti hyphonates (be an "American", not a "German-American" or any other hyphonate), and it was viscoous bigotry against those low born eastern European scum as many saw it.

It led in part to prohibition as a big F-U to those hard drinking Catholics. And don't forget "Irish need not apply".

1903 source


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them



I sent a woman I know a link that ranked countries by how expats have it. That's people that immigrate to a job. The US was ranked 47th. It's funny though. My mother was from Kentucky and wanted my life difficult. I think the problems she and my father had bothered her.
With current immigration problems, no diplomacy. Democrats want a path to citizenship for people illegally here while Republicans want a wall. If they found middle ground in some policy that both sides could live with, it might change some attitudes in the general population but no leadership is coming from politicians. It's always "my way or no way".[/quote]

47th, out of how many countries? I'm not sure how many there are these days, several hundred.

The wall won't stop illegal immigration, since quite a few come through the front door as well, just throw their visas in the trash, once they arrive. The wall would slow the flow at the border some, make it a little easier to enforce. Once we slow the flow, we can work on citizenship, for those already here. Handing out citizenship to everyone who makes across, just encourages more to take a shortcut.

If you had a pipe leaking water in your basement... Wouldn't you shut off the water, repair the leak, and then mop up the water on the floor? If you start mopping first, that's about all you accomplish, since the pipe keeps leaking, until you fix that problem. If you don't shut off the water first, you'll spill a lot more water, have more trouble with the repair, bigger mess to clean up.

Trump has also been working on the visa thing too, seldom gets much media attention. It's not something they can bash Trump over the head with, so it doesn't rate air-time, just something that should have been addressed a long time ago, just no political benefit.
30-09-2019 06:18
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not a few individuals, it's been a pretty steady 50,000-100,000, per month.

Yep, and that adds up over time. Half million to 1.2 million a year. Some return home, of course, but others have children here. The demographic structure of the US has changed rapidly, 4% Hispanic in my early adulthood and 18% now, more than half born abroad and a quarter here without permission. Hispanics are fine as people, most of them hardworking & family-oriented, but any country has limits on how fast it can assimilate newcomers from a foreign culture.

It's meant the end of the free-range childhood I was lucky to enjoy and a lot of extra identity politics, among other things. Population growth is why housing's so expensive.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 30-09-2019 06:20
30-09-2019 06:52
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, it means that liars are bold enough to lie. That's what liars do when they are bold enough to tell a story that is false.

If he kept his rep up, fewer liars would step up. The media blew it up like a helium balloon, as they did with digging up his studio van comment, but they've had a loft full of hay with this fella. New York & Miami are the real estate scam capitals of the US. And competition to develop the biggest skyscraper in town with attendant need to grease the planning commissioners. Not a scene I figured on producing a tenant for the White House.

Into the Night wrote:
They were paying Trump, not the other way around.

Isn't that's what investors always do? Then they hope to get it back with return. Even if the tears can be skipped on account of ability to afford condos in Trump Tower Toronto, fact remains Trump didn't make the disclosures on the property Canadian law required.

James___ wrote:
Could be why so many leaks coming from the White House. It is an interesting read which quotes some powerful Republicans.

Thanks. Maybe Trump should have kept Anthony Scaramucci around instead of firing him after ten days.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
30-09-2019 07:32
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, it means that liars are bold enough to lie. That's what liars do when they are bold enough to tell a story that is false.

If he kept his rep up, fewer liars would step up. The media blew it up like a helium balloon, as they did with digging up his studio van comment, but they've had a loft full of hay with this fella. New York & Miami are the real estate scam capitals of the US. And competition to develop the biggest skyscraper in town with attendant need to grease the planning commissioners. Not a scene I figured on producing a tenant for the White House.

Into the Night wrote:
They were paying Trump, not the other way around.

Isn't that's what investors always do? Then they hope to get it back with return. Even if the tears can be skipped on account of ability to afford condos in Trump Tower Toronto, fact remains Trump didn't make the disclosures on the property Canadian law required.

James___ wrote:
Could be why so many leaks coming from the White House. It is an interesting read which quotes some powerful Republicans.

Thanks. Maybe Trump should have kept Anthony Scaramucci around instead of firing him after ten days.



The studio tape came from the Bushes. No digging necessary. The person who recorded what Trump was talking about was actually a Bush. As in related to 2 former presidents.
You guys didn't know that? Billy Bush is George W. Bush's 1st cousin. The Bushes don't like Trump. Blame them. William (Billy) Bush probably did not let the studio know what he had or it probably would've come out sooner.
The FBI at the same time said that Hillary Clinton used a wrong email server. Could be why the Bushes leaked it to the media.
Take issue with how his own people are treating him. You can't.
Look for articles dated before election day 2016. Create a time line of when they became nws, Hillary with more emails and Trump's recording made known.
Edited on 30-09-2019 08:07
30-09-2019 08:36
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
Moved to the correct thread.
Edited on 30-09-2019 08:45
30-09-2019 18:51
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
I think it's biggest impact is on worker rights as you have a large population that have no rights at all competing in the economy. But again, minor issue. Also not a new one for the US. We expereince this exact same senario with the same reaction 100 years ago.

For a long time it was a minor issue, and I don't advocate a reprise of "Operation Wetback," the series of roundups in Spanish-speaking communities that started just after I was born. But it's not a minor issue for entry-level workers today. Kids wanting an unskilled construction job often confront a sign reading "Se habla espanol." Literally, we speak Spanish, and if no hablas, no trabajo.

In the Pew graph, think about how turbulent the period from 1850 to 1920 was in US history. The Volga Germans, the Wobblies, the Rock Springs Chinese railroad workers' massacre, Eugene Debs and Sacco & Vanzetti, not to mention the birth of the Mafia. The pro-immigration lobby's appeal to "give me your huddled masses" is outdated, from an era when the US had 50 million people and a huge West needing labor.

If we don't want roundups, or worse, chances for anger leading to a pogrom against foreigners, what better way to impede the flow than at the border? At least that would leave us with just the visa overstays.

James___ wrote:
The studio tape came from the Bushes. No digging necessary...Take issue with how his own people are treating him. You can't.


The Scaramucci remark was a tidbit of sarcasm for IBdaMann's benefit. Trump is the lowest-quality president ever to grace a TV tube in my opinion, notwithstanding the media's habit of accentuating sleaze factors and my agreement with Trump's position on a few specific issues.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
30-09-2019 22:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:
I think it's biggest impact is on worker rights as you have a large population that have no rights at all competing in the economy.

The exact opposite. Illegal immigrants are a protected class, being afforded more rights than US citizens.

New York City Law Allows Fines Up To $250,000 For Saying 'Illegal Alien'

VernerHornung wrote: For a long time it was a minor issue, and I don't advocate a reprise of "Operation Wetback," the series of roundups in Spanish-speaking communities that started just after I was born.

I'm not buying it. I don't recall anything like this ever happening and I was paying attention. I think this is a fiction you were told to believe and you obeyed. I think you are spouting this off to kill two birds with one stone: 1) attack political opponents over a bogus label of racism you have assigned to them and 2) to virtue-signal to other dishonest leftists just how "not-racist" you are.

I also think that people like you who are quick to throw around slurs like "wetback" while virtue-signaling probably do use them in private.

VernerHornung wrote: But it's not a minor issue for entry-level workers today. Kids wanting an unskilled construction job often confront a sign reading "Se habla espanol." Literally, we speak Spanish, and if no hablas, no trabajo.

I know of plenty of such places.

VernerHornung wrote:In the Pew graph, think about how turbulent the period from 1850 to 1920 was in US history.

Think about how Democrats and leftist organizations are the sole cause of divisive identity politics today.


VernerHornung wrote: If we don't want roundups, or worse, chances for anger leading to a pogrom against foreigners, what better way to impede the flow than at the border?

We want roundups ... just the right kind ... like of law breakers, for example.


VernerHornung wrote: The Scaramucci remark was a tidbit of sarcasm for IBdaMann's benefit.

I have to apologize. You went through the trouble and I didn't get it. Was the sarcasm that Scaramucci doesn't like Trump?

I'm sure it was funny, ... I'm just not getting it. Thanks, though.

VernerHornung wrote:Trump is the lowest-quality president ever to grace a TV tube in my opinion, notwithstanding the media's habit of accentuating sleaze factors and my agreement with Trump's position on a few specific issues.

Have you seen those unemployment figures? Did you check out that tax reform? How about that Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement?

How about those Democrats throwing the country under the bus in order to thwart every attempt Trump makes to make America great?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2019 04:51
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
The exact opposite. Illegal immigrants are a protected class, being afforded more rights than US citizens.

New York City Law Allows Fines Up To $250,000 For Saying 'Illegal Alien'

Here's someone who thinks the Daily Caller a reliable source of information calling me a racist. Undocumented immigrants are sanctified in PC ideology, but have few protections in the real world.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote: For a long time it was a minor issue, and I don't advocate a reprise of "Operation Wetback," the series of roundups in Spanish-speaking communities that started just after I was born.

I'm not buying it. I don't recall anything like this ever happening and I was paying attention.

That's because you weren't around in 1954.

IBdaMann wrote:
I also think that people like you who are quick to throw around slurs like "wetback" while virtue-signaling probably do use them in private.

That's exactly what the Border Patrol operation was named. There was no public stigma attached to lots of words now considered profanity. Political Correctness did not exist in 1950, 1960 or 1970 and was only beginning to come into vogue during the 1980s with the debate over English's gendered pronoun system.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote: But it's not a minor issue for entry-level workers today. Kids wanting an unskilled construction job often confront a sign reading "Se habla espanol." Literally, we speak Spanish, and if no hablas, no trabajo.

I know of plenty of such places.

I do too. In my own town. I didn't say that illegal immigration is a minor issue now. But it wasn't on the agenda to nearly the degree this generation's been familiar with until the 1980s, when President Reagan built the nation's first substantial border barriers near San Diego. Before then, it was an occasional issue, coming into focus during the Depression and again during the McCarthy era.

Both parties have been in bed together on this thing decades, Democrats for satisfaction of progressive "nation of immigrant" ideals (and, not incidentally, captive voting blocs) and Republicans for satisfaction of libertarian freedom-of-travel (and, not incidentally, cheap labor).

I'm also cognizant that when AOC condemned Trump over migrant children in cages, he faced restrictions on his latitude of action. Laws don't permit immediate repatriation unless a migrant agrees to it, and Trump had also decided on prosecution under USC 1325 as a deterrent.

None of Trump's actions has approached Operation Wetback levels. Back then, they sent a million people home in four months. They had their own bus line and kept it running at capacity. This summer's ICE roundup netted 34, plus about 600 caught in a raid at a meatpacking plant.

IBdaMann wrote:
Have you seen those unemployment figures? Did you check out that tax reform? How about that Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement? How about those Democrats throwing the country under the bus in order to thwart every attempt Trump makes to make America great?.

Trump's benefitting from no more than the normal business cycle, already well on the upswing in 2016 and probably nearing its end. We had pretty good unemployment figures in 2007 just before the subprime mortgage meltdown, 4.3% then versus 3.7% recently. But the official unemployment misses a lot as labor force participation is only 62.9% now, down from 67% twenty years ago. That means a smaller proportion of those aged 18-64 are in the workforce today; millions of people have dropped out and quit looking for work in an economy that has no use for them.

And I bet it's gonna get worse, as more production is offshored and more people imported to do the service jobs. If not really Trump's fault, a macro trend which has defined US economics over the last 40 years, I can't see Trump justified in claiming credit for our nation's performance, a thing having only so much to do with presidents anyway. You can't cut tax rates and go on spending like mad. Talking about deficits out of one side of the mouth while continuing endless expansion of programs is hypocrisy. Trump campaigns on reactionary populism, whatever assuages the feelings of heartlanders left behind by gigs, tech and diversity.

I don't like the Democrats or the GOP. They've gone off diving boards into a dry pool, one on the left end and one on the right.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 01-10-2019 04:55
01-10-2019 07:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
VernerHornung wrote:Here's someone who thinks the Daily Caller a reliable source of information calling me a racist.

I didn't call you a racist. You get an "F" for reading comprehension. I merely implied that you were probably racist. I was just going with the odds, not stating any certainty.

VernerHornung wrote: Undocumented immigrants are sanctified in PC ideology, but have few protections in the real world.

EVASIVE, as usual. How about De Blasio's $250,000 fine for saying "illegal alien" or anything that might be "hurtful" to illegals? They are a protected class with clearly more protections that US citizens.

Answer the question.

Oh, and while you're at it, how deep are oil wells typically? How do you imagine hydrocarbons forming? Does it involve heat and pressure?

Anyway, what is your opinion of the rounding up of illegal aliens by the government and sent back to the country of origin?


VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I know of plenty of such places.

I do too. In my own town.

In my home town as well. I grew up in the illegal immigrant epicenter, with signs in Spanish, menudo on every street corner. My parents had to move when I was very young because of violent illegal immigrant gang activity in our neighborhood. Las charlas para mi boda se occurrieron en una iglesia que las ofreció en el castellano para la comunidad por un sacerdote de España. I grew up where English was the minority language (the top 5 radio stations were Spanish broadcasts, as well as #7 and #10) and I didn't even become aware of the concept of someone being in the country illegally until I was in highschool because so many were there illegally that it wasn't even a thing. In fact, many of my friends were in the country illegally and they weren't even aware of that fact. Their parents knew, but they did not. As a result, I was never faced with the concept and it never came up in any conversations for me to even hear (you might even be able to figure out where I was raised from the above).

Let's just say I had a major realization one day about the extent of the problem in the United States with illegal immigration and how the prevailing attitudes were ones of legitimizing ignoring the law.

As far as protections for illegals, you are out of your mind if you think that politicians don't become paralyzed at the threats from political organizations, and where I grew up, you could fill two pages of the phone book with "Chicano Action" and "Hispanics United" that and "Latino Legal" every which way. If you weren't or aren't an illegal hispanic immigrant then you are at a disadvantage, rights-wise and privilege-wise. If you disagree, bring it on. I'd love to see your support.

[side note]
Also, if you are an illegal immigrant, you have your pick of dozens of "Latino" scholarship opportunities that are dying to pay your college tuition, opportunities that are simply unavailable to, say, caucasian citizens who all get to compete for a Pell grant. Illegal immigrants also get automatic "in state" tuition in nineteen states whereas citizens have to prove they live there.
[/side note]


VernerHornung wrote:Both parties have been in bed together on this thing decades, Democrats for satisfaction of progressive "nation of immigrant" ideals (and, not incidentally, captive voting blocs) and Republicans for satisfaction of libertarian freedom-of-travel (and, not incidentally, cheap labor).

Spot on. The topic wasn't even going to be addressed had Trump not been elected. The establishment Republicans can take a hike. Drain the swamp, baby, drain the swamp.

VernerHornung wrote: I'm also cognizant that when AOC condemned Trump over migrant children in cages, he faced restrictions on his latitude of action.

There were no children in cages.

Children of incarcerated parents got/get to stay in conditions that were much better than what I had when I went to summer camp.

VernerHornung wrote:None of Trump's actions has approached Operation Wetback levels.

How about you just render your assessment of Trump's deportation of repeat criminal illegal immigrants? What did you think? Effective, no?


VernerHornung wrote: Back then, they sent a million people home in four months.

So, aside from the offensive name, it was nonetheless a good idea. It wasn't very effective but it was the government doing what the government is supposed to do when it isn't keeping the illegals from coming in the first place, right?

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Have you seen those unemployment figures? Did you check out that tax reform? How about that Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement? How about those Democrats throwing the country under the bus in order to thwart every attempt Trump makes to make America great?.

Trump's benefitting from no more than the normal business cycle,

Absurd. You are either insane or dishonest to claim that the tax reform just happened by accident, and that the US-Canada-Mexico trade deal came into existence and was signed by random chance, especially when Trump campaigned on those issues. Trump took steps to increase jobs and look, they worked apparently. It is disingenuous, and entirely unbelievable, when you sour grapes all his efforts because you desperately want him to fail.


VernerHornung wrote: And I bet it's gonna get worse, as more production is offshored and more people imported to do the service jobs.

This is an entirely disigenuous statement. When record unemployment is achieved, of course it's difficult to improve from that point on and it's easy for it to "get worse." You have said nothing other than you hope the country fails just because you suffer from TDS.


VernerHornung wrote: I can't see Trump justified in claiming credit for our nation's performance,

You have to. You have no choice. When a President gets elected on certain campaign promises, takes action on those promises and achieves positive results, you have to give him credit. To not do so only identifies you as a whining, spiteful loser who is driven by hatred more than anything else.

Anyway, Trump is going to be reelected in 2020. Why not push to work with him rather than try to cut him, and the country, off at the knees at every opportunity?

VernerHornung wrote: You can't cut tax rates and go on spending like mad.

Great! I agree. Let's get Congress to stop doing that ... well, the spending like mad part. What does Trump have to do with that? He's not the legislative branch.


VernerHornung wrote: Trump campaigns on reactionary populism,

Ummm, are you saying that he resonates with the voters? OK. That's good, right? I think so.



VernerHornung wrote:I don't like the Democrats or the GOP.

You and I are singing from the same sheet of music. Let's work with Trump to drain the swamp and to make America great again! Are you in?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2019 11:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
VernerHornung wrote:any country has limits on how fast it can assimilate newcomers from a foreign culture.
Yep they have to pace it better. In Europe too. It's why there is Brexit really. Immigration has been too fast for people not to freak out a little. We when from the chinese exclusion act and extremely low immigration in the middle of the last century back up to industrial revolution levels. But one serious issue for economies is the dropping birth rate. I think that's why Germany was happy to take a million Syrians.

We should look back to the last immigration freak out to learn some things. The anti hyphonate movement was really a good thing we should re-embrace. The right would like how it undercuts the identity politics and at the end of the day it's about real acceptance.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/201407/im-proud-be-hyphenated-american
https://reimaginingmigration.org/assimilation-integration-and-hyphenated-americans/

Teddy Roosevelt was right.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
02-10-2019 06:43
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
I merely implied that you were probably racist. I was just going with the odds, not stating any certainty.

Oh, just probably then.
~


I'm losing interest in the Twitter flock anyway. Others are arguing it all over the place and I see little reason to keep adding my puny voice to the roar. The tweets from City of New York referenced in the Daily Caller do not exist or have been deleted since Thursday. And De Blasio's out of the race.

IBdaMann wrote:
How about De Blasio's $250,000 fine for saying "illegal alien" or anything that might be "hurtful" to illegals? They are a protected class with clearly more protections that US citizens. Answer the question.

There is no such law. It's a guidance issued by New York City Commission on Human Rights, that is, a regulatory opinion instead of an ordinance. The fine in question will never be enforced. And it doesn't apply to Joe Bloe on the street:

"The law covers workplace harassment, tenants' rights, and public accommodation. Merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, would not be illegal."

-Reason Magazine, September 30
https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/

IBdaMann wrote:
Trump's deportation of repeat criminal illegal immigrants? What did you think? Effective, no?

7400 ICE criminal arrests in 2018 versus 4800 two years earlier, considerable improvement. Also 30000 immigration arrests of aliens with conviction histories or facing charges in the US. But note these are arrests which don't always mean an alien has left or will leave the country; only a fraction are actually escorted onto the plane. Many are told to leave by an immigration judge, but free while supposedly arranging their own travel home. They may not leave at all.

This situation is due to laws passed well before Trump got elected. What's really needed is a Congressional overhaul of immigration allowing those without visas to be arrested, smiled at, given a sack lunch and $20 travel money courtesy Uncle Sam, and emplaned the same day, on USCBP or USICE say-so. Only green card holders or valid visas should have access to the immigration courts in most cases. Without such expediency removal will remain a Sisyphean process of arrest, hearings, appeals, re-arrests, re-hearings, appeals before departure. I do not fault Trump for these ground truths, but he's unlikely to get them changed.

2018 ICE Enforcement
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/eroFY2018Report.pdf
(see pp. 6, 8)

IBdaMann wrote:
When a President gets elected on certain campaign promises, takes action on those promises and achieves positive results, you have to give him credit.

Generally I avoid assigning praise or blame for economic events to presidents. They don't control the economy, create or destroy jobs or predict the future. Bush didn't cause the recession nor Trump the following boom, which started while Obama was in office anyway. A president can set a tone that may promote consumer confidence, and pick Fed board members whose seats come open. Or propose legislation Congress has to pass.

For the tax cut, the GOP was receptive and any GOP prez would have had one. Personally, I like tax cuts and believe they can—under the right circumstances—increase investment & jobs. But it's not guaranteed, and running $1 trillion deficits to have tax cuts is foolish.

tmiddles wrote:
But one serious issue for economies is the dropping birth rate. I think that's why Germany was happy to take a million Syrians.

Yet a country cannot immigrate itself out of an aging workforce forever. The newcomers get old, too, and then Germany has the same problem it did before, with a larger population to take care of. I believe that's why Japan has rejected that solution. Whether they're racist or not, they are on an island the size of California with 130 million souls. They don't have room to double again.

tmiddles wrote:
We should look back to the last immigration freak out to learn some things. The anti hyphonate movement was really a good thing we should re-embrace. The right would like how it undercuts the identity politics and at the end of the day it's about real acceptance.

Newcomers from abroad deserve a warm welcome here. The Chinese Exclusion Act unfairly targeted one nation, China, for discriminatory treatment, and same with respect to religion for the "Muslim bans" Trump liked in 2017 (which named 7 countries instead but oddly included Christians from those). I think equal chances for admission based on merit or close family ties (parent, child under 21) should be offered every potential source country and every religion or race. Only the total number per year needs a cap.

But we do have a lot of immigration, over a million a year legally and a similar number entering without authorization or overstaying a temporary visa. It impacts how much open land we have per person. If allowed to run rampant, it will cheat future generations of visa applicants when we're forced to slam the door.

That's why I feel limits on total number are needed, if we want to have an open door long-term.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 02-10-2019 06:54
02-10-2019 07:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I merely implied that you were probably racist. I was just going with the odds, not stating any certainty.

Oh, just probably then.
~


I'm losing interest in the Twitter flock anyway. Others are arguing it all over the place and I see little reason to keep adding my puny voice to the roar. The tweets from City of New York referenced in the Daily Caller do not exist or have been deleted since Thursday. And De Blasio's out of the race.

IBdaMann wrote:
How about De Blasio's $250,000 fine for saying "illegal alien" or anything that might be "hurtful" to illegals? They are a protected class with clearly more protections that US citizens. Answer the question.

There is no such law. It's a guidance issued by New York City Commission on Human Rights, that is, a regulatory opinion instead of an ordinance. The fine in question will never be enforced. And it doesn't apply to Joe Bloe on the street:

It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.
VernerHornung wrote:
"The law covers workplace harassment, tenants' rights, and public accommodation. Merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, would not be illegal."

-Reason Magazine, September 30
https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/

Yes it would. Reason magazine is wrong.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2019 19:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
How about De Blasio's $250,000 fine for saying "illegal alien" or anything that might be "hurtful" to illegals? They are a protected class with clearly more protections that US citizens. Answer the question.

There is no such law.

Au contraire mon frère ....

The NYC Commission on Human Rights released new legal enforcement guidelines "that defines discrimination on the basis of perceived or actual immigration status and national origin under the New York City Human Rights Law in public accommodations, employment, and housing,"

The new guidelines mean:

* using the term "illegal alien" or other similar terms to "demean, humiliate, or harass a person is now illegal under the law."

* discriminating against someone for their limited English proficiency is now illegal

* threatening to call ICE on a person is now illegal

* it is illegal to tell anyone to "go back to their own country," regardless of their legal status.

* carries a fine of up to $250,000

I am a US citizen by birth and I do not have these protections. People are allowed to discriminate against me for having a poor proficiency in some language. People can tell me to "go back to my country" with impunity. People can threaten to call ICE on me with impunity. People can call me a "Yankee," "Gringo (I suppose)," or any other slur with intent to dehumanize me with complete impunity.

If I were illegal I would have more rights and protections than I do now.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2019 19:16
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.

The NYCHRC has legal authority to regulate employers and landlords in the city, so those are the actors whom it could attempt to impose its fine against. If it does, Hans Bader is certain the regulation will be overturned on 1st Amendment grounds. Lunacy of this sort is common, and makes me glad I don't live in New York. They waste real money litigating "message bills" that have no chance of practical effect, money they're not devoting to real problems like rats & chuckholes in the Bronx.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
02-10-2019 20:08
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
People are allowed to discriminate against me for...

(...insert reason here, as long as it's not for belonging to one of a plethora of social categories such as "person of color," female, gay, transgender, Muslim, Sikh &c). Maybe you could claim disability discrim if it were a language proficiency thing. I agree this development in our politics is ridiculous. It's 200-odd groups all wanting an analogy to the indelible skin tone marker that King identified as unrelated to "the content of their character."

While special laws were necessary to protect blacks in the culture of the 1960s, the modern me too doesn't need a hate speech code. The average bloke hasn't the resources to bring a lawsuit to completion even if a member of a protected group; most get help only if a civil rights lawyer takes their case pro bono. The laws make rich liberals richer, in other words, changing almost nothing on our streets. The pair who went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against Masterpiece Cakeshop were professionals looking to agitate the judiciary. They won, but SCOTUS scuttled them 7-2 a million dollars later.

I think the left should be as outraged as the right is. Nobody's benefiting from it. And everyone's still free to be nasty to people who wear cowboy hats, smoke cigarettes, talk slow, get shy around crowds or drive a jalopy to work. All these groups are denied jobs or housing as well.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 02-10-2019 20:26
02-10-2019 21:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.

The NYCHRC has legal authority to regulate employers and landlords in the city, so those are the actors whom it could attempt to impose its fine against.

The NYCHRC has no legal authority to violate the 1st Amendment.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2019 22:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.

The NYCHRC has legal authority to regulate employers and landlords in the city, so those are the actors whom it could attempt to impose its fine against.

Nope. Applies to everyone.
VernerHornung wrote:
If it does, Hans Bader is certain the regulation will be overturned on 1st Amendment grounds.

The 1st amendment does not apply to States or city governments. It only applies to Congress (the federal government).
VernerHornung wrote:
Lunacy of this sort is common, and makes me glad I don't live in New York.

New York State is not the same as New York City.
VernerHornung wrote:
They waste real money litigating "message bills" that have no chance of practical effect, money they're not devoting to real problems like rats & chuckholes in the Bronx.

The Bronx is a neighborhood of New York City. The law was put forth by New York City, not the State.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2019 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
People are allowed to discriminate against me for...

(...insert reason here, as long as it's not for belonging to one of a plethora of social categories such as "person of color," female, gay, transgender, Muslim, Sikh &c). Maybe you could claim disability discrim if it were a language proficiency thing. I agree this development in our politics is ridiculous. It's 200-odd groups all wanting an analogy to the indelible skin tone marker that King identified as unrelated to "the content of their character."

While special laws were necessary to protect blacks in the culture of the 1960s,

None. Any such law in and of itself is racism.
VernerHornung wrote:
the modern me too doesn't need a hate speech code. The average bloke hasn't the resources to bring a lawsuit to completion even if a member of a protected group; most get help only if a civil rights lawyer takes their case pro bono. The laws make rich liberals richer, in other words, changing almost nothing on our streets. The pair who went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against Masterpiece Cakeshop were professionals looking to agitate the judiciary. They won, but SCOTUS scuttled them 7-2 a million dollars later.

And broke the law doing it. The Supreme Court had no authority for that decision. They do not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States or to overrule the constitution of the State of Colorado (unless it is in conflict with those portions of the U.S.Constitution that are binding upon the States).
VernerHornung wrote:
I think the left should be as outraged as the right is.

The liberals want to destroy constitutions and implement fascism by oligarchy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Nobody's benefiting from it.

The liberals are.
VernerHornung wrote:
And everyone's still free to be nasty to people who wear cowboy hats, smoke cigarettes, talk slow, get shy around crowds or drive a jalopy to work. All these groups are denied jobs or housing as well.

Depends on the State.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2019 22:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.

The NYCHRC has legal authority to regulate employers and landlords in the city, so those are the actors whom it could attempt to impose its fine against.

The NYCHRC has no legal authority to violate the 1st Amendment.

.


Actually, they DO. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. This law is governed by the constitution of the State of New York. It violates Article I, $8 and $11 of that constitution. Nothing in any city charter gives that city the authority to overrule the State constitution that city is located in.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2019 23:16
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(196)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.

The NYCHRC has legal authority to regulate employers and landlords in the city, so those are the actors whom it could attempt to impose its fine against.

The NYCHRC has no legal authority to violate the 1st Amendment.

.


Actually, they DO. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. This law is governed by the constitution of the State of New York. It violates Article I, $8 and $11 of that constitution. Nothing in any city charter gives that city the authority to overrule the State constitution that city is located in.

Correct. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is quite clear when it says "Congress shall make no law...". The Amendment is making specific reference to Congress (ie, federal government), not to any State or Municipality.

However, like you mentioned, the NYC law is CLEARLY in violation of the NY State Constitution in both Section 8 and Section 11. Section 8 is about freedom of speech, and Section 11 is about equal protection (can't discriminate re: civil rights).
02-10-2019 23:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. It applies to all in New York City, even Joe Bloe. The NYC on Human Rights has authority to enforce this law.

The NYCHRC has legal authority to regulate employers and landlords in the city, so those are the actors whom it could attempt to impose its fine against.

The NYCHRC has no legal authority to violate the 1st Amendment.

.


Actually, they DO. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. This law is governed by the constitution of the State of New York. It violates Article I, $8 and $11 of that constitution. Nothing in any city charter gives that city the authority to overrule the State constitution that city is located in.

Correct. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is quite clear when it says "Congress shall make no law...". The Amendment is making specific reference to Congress (ie, federal government), not to any State or Municipality.

However, like you mentioned, the NYC law is CLEARLY in violation of the NY State Constitution in both Section 8 and Section 11. Section 8 is about freedom of speech, and Section 11 is about equal protection (can't discriminate re: civil rights).


Just so we all know what we're talking about here, this is the text in question from the law in question:

§ 8-402 Civil action to eliminate unlawful discriminatory practices.
a. Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that a person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice that results in the denial to any person of the full enjoyment of any right secured by chapter 1 of this title, a civil action on behalf of the commission or the city may be commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction, by filing a complaint setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice and requesting such relief as may be deemed necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights described in such chapter, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and such other types of relief as are specified in subdivision a of section 8-120. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit (i) an aggrieved person from filing a complaint pursuant to section 8-109 or from commencing a civil action pursuant to chapter 5 of this title based upon the same facts pertaining to such a pattern or practice as are alleged in the civil action, or (ii) the commission from filing a commission-initiated complaint pursuant to section 8-109 alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination, provided that a civil action pursuant to this section shall not have previously been commenced.

b. A civil action commenced under this section must be commenced within three years after the alleged discriminatory practice occurred.
c. Such action may be instituted only by the corporation counsel, such attorneys employed by the city commission on human rights as are designated by the corporation counsel or other persons designated by the corporation counsel.

§ 8-403 Investigation.
The corporation counsel may initiate any investigation to ascertain such facts as may be necessary for the commencement of a civil action pursuant to section 8-402, and in connection therewith shall have the power to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, to administer oaths and to examine such persons as are deemed necessary.


§ 8-404 Civil penalty.
In any civil action commenced pursuant to section 8-402, the trier of fact may, to vindicate the public interest, impose upon any person who is found to have engaged in a pattern or practice that results in the denial to any person of the full enjoyment of any right secured by chapter 1 of this title a civil penalty of not more than $250,000. In relation to determining the appropriate amount of civil penalties to be imposed pursuant to this section a liable party may plead and prove any relevant mitigating factor. Any civil penalties so recovered pursuant to this chapter shall be paid into the general fund of the city. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the city from recovering damages, including punitive damages, and other relief pursuant to section 8-402 in addition to civil penalties.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2019 04:16
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
The NYCHRC has no legal authority to violate the 1st Amendment.

Agreed. Therefore, no need to wade through the details of a NYC regulation that will die once tested. Workplace harassment and other civil rights issues NYCHRC oversees will be handled the way they were before this nonsense came to birth. And it is a regulation as none of it was passed by the city council. Regulations carry force of law, for example the EPA and gas mileage, but only over the persons or entities regulated, and they're easier to challenge in court than a legislative act is.

While I don't have exact knowledge regarding the boundaries of NYCHRC's purview, with such commissions it's generally employers, landlords, businesses offering goods to the public, and city agencies. Those having complaints petition NYCHRC, which may then undertake enforcement efforts in the civil courts.

Into the Night wrote:
The 1st amendment does not apply to States or city governments. It only applies to Congress (the federal government).

True when the Bill of Rights was ratified, but no longer so:

"The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
-Cornell Legal Info Inst.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

This came about after the Civil War through a series of SCOTUS decisions up to recent times, one of the notable cases Mapp v. Ohio (1961), holding that evidence seized in violation of 4th Amendment standards cannot be used in state criminal trials. Cities and counties are creatures of their state legislatures, so they're not exempt, either.

Some parts of the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated yet, but 1, 2 and 4 have, plus most of 5, 6 and 8.

Into the Night wrote:
New York State is not the same as New York City.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know damn well "New York" is used interchangeably for the city and its state—and NYC is a creature of Albany per what I noted above anyway.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
03-10-2019 04:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The NYCHRC has no legal authority to violate the 1st Amendment.

Agreed. Therefore, no need to wade through the details of a NYC regulation that will die once tested. Workplace harassment and other civil rights issues NYCHRC oversees will be handled the way they were before this nonsense came to birth. And it is a regulation as none of it was passed by the city council. Regulations carry force of law, for example the EPA and gas mileage, but only over the persons or entities regulated, and they're easier to challenge in court than a legislative act is.

While I don't have exact knowledge regarding the boundaries of NYCHRC's purview, with such commissions it's generally employers, landlords, businesses offering goods to the public, and city agencies. Those having complaints petition NYCHRC, which may then undertake enforcement efforts in the civil courts.

Into the Night wrote:
The 1st amendment does not apply to States or city governments. It only applies to Congress (the federal government).

True when the Bill of Rights was ratified, but no longer so:

"The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
-Cornell Legal Info Inst.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Nope. The 14th amendment does not change the 1st amendment at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
This came about after the Civil War through a series of SCOTUS decisions up to recent times, one of the notable cases Mapp v. Ohio (1961), holding that evidence seized in violation of 4th Amendment standards cannot be used in state criminal trials.

The 4th amendment has always been binding on the States. Not the amendment we are talking about. Redirection fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Some parts of the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated yet, but 1, 2 and 4 have, plus most of 5, 6 and 8.

The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments have always been binding on the States. Nothing has changed with them.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
New York State is not the same as New York City.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know damn well "New York" is used interchangeably for the city and its state—and NYC is a creature of Albany per what I noted above anyway.
~


Liar. You specifically were referring to a New York City law as if it applied to the entire State.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2019 04:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. ....
...Lunacy of this sort is common,....

The desire almost everyone seems to have for authoritarian rule is a constant disappointment.

Freedom means people have the right to be jerks. The worst tyrant believes nice people can be nice or that the "good people" can rock on. If you don't believe that people you loath should be able to do things you wish they wouldn't then you don't believe in freedom at all.
03-10-2019 05:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is law. ....
...Lunacy of this sort is common,....

The desire almost everyone seems to have for authoritarian rule is a constant disappointment.

Freedom means people have the right to be jerks. The worst tyrant believes nice people can be nice or that the "good people" can rock on. If you don't believe that people you loath should be able to do things you wish they wouldn't then you don't believe in freedom at all.



I had a friend from Spain who had an excellent definition. To give you context, he had lived under Franco.
He told me there are 2 types of law. There is common law and then there is business law. The US adheres to business law.
The difference in laws is that with common law you do not interfere in someone's life just because you don't like what they're doing.
Common law requires people to live their own life. Business law allows for propriety. In reality, any society requires a balance between individual freedoms and the rights of businesses.
I don't think there is such a balance.
When you post on Facebook, you will see advertisements for merchandise that you looked at on various websites. How Facebook makes it's money. It is aware of your online activity and profits from it.
Business law allows for businesses to monitor All of your activities. An example is if you want to take a picture with the camera on your smartphone. You will be asked to give access to virtually everything on your phone if you want to upload that one picture. This means that you gave access to virtually everything stored on your phone.
People apparently don't care that they give such access to a business. After all, you can upload a picture while they can upload what they want. They just don't charge you for what they upload. It's in their code.
03-10-2019 05:49
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
If Ya'all don't get this, it's what cookies do as well. Chances are that at least 6 different "cookies" are uploading information. This is what cookies on your phone or pc do.
They simply track your online activity. It's what's behind marketing today.
This is why most websites require you to accept their cookies. If they're not deleted immediately then they will know all of your online activity.
The bytes necessary might not be noticed. That's what business law allows for.
Edited on 03-10-2019 05:50
03-10-2019 06:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
James___ wrote:
Common law requires people to live their own life. Business law allows for propriety. In reality, any society requires a balance between individual freedoms and the rights of businesses.
I don't think there is such a balance.

Good point. I think that the loss of privacy is simply theft. "Marketers spent an average of $567 advertising to each person in the US last year". A significant portion of that value is tied to what should be private information. If you consider the ad spend on someone in a choice demographic I'm sure it's in the thousands.

If someone is going to sell me I want to be the one deciding to do it AND the one getting paid.
03-10-2019 14:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1711)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Common law requires people to live their own life. Business law allows for propriety. In reality, any society requires a balance between individual freedoms and the rights of businesses.
I don't think there is such a balance.

Good point. I think that the loss of privacy is simply theft. "Marketers spent an average of $567 advertising to each person in the US last year". A significant portion of that value is tied to what should be private information. If you consider the ad spend on someone in a choice demographic I'm sure it's in the thousands.

If someone is going to sell me I want to be the one deciding to do it AND the one getting paid.



One thing I do regularly is clean up space. That deletes temporary files like cookies. They showed once on the news that many websites will have a few tracking programs.
03-10-2019 16:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
VernerHornung wrote: While I don't have exact knowledge regarding the boundaries of NYCHRC's purview, with such commissions it's generally employers, landlords, businesses offering goods to the public, and city agencies.

I can clarify this for you. It applies to all of New York City. Any person can file a "complaint" to the Commission regarding any "discriminitory act," and if the Commission deems the "discriminatory act" was "willful" for example, the Commission can levy a fine not to exceed $250,000.


The New York City Administrative Code,
Title 8: Civil Rights
Chapter 1 - Commission on Human Rights

§ 8-126. Civil penalties imposed by commission for unlawful discriminatory practices or acts of discriminatory harassment or violence.


a. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 13 of section 8-107, in addition to any of the remedies and penalties set forth in subdivision a of section 8-120, where the commission finds that a person has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice, the commission may, to vindicate the public interest, impose a civil penalty of not more than $125,000. Where the commission finds that an unlawful discriminatory practice was the result of the respondent's willful, wanton or malicious act or where the commission finds that an act of discriminatory harassment or violence as set forth in chapter 6 of this title has occurred, the commission may, to vindicate the public interest, impose a civil penalty of not more than $250,000.


Please note that if you never intended to be offensive, that you never intended to be hurtful, that you were not willful in any way yet some snowflake felt that your errant pronouns were microaggressing the refuge of her pansexuality safe space ... the Commission can only levy a fine not exceeding $125,000 ... in order to "vindicate the public interest."

You can read the entire text of Section 8 here.

... and if you are curious, "pansexuality" is specifically recognized under this law, under the definition of "Sexual orientation" ...

Sexual orientation. The term "sexual orientation" means an individual's actual or perceived romantic, physical or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. A continuum of sexual orientation exists and includes, but is not limited to, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and pansexuality.


... and "Gender" in New York City is defined as whatever is perceived by a person "regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth."

Gender. The term "gender" includes actual or perceived sex, gender identity and gender expression, including a person's actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression or other gender-related characteristic, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.


It is what it is.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2019 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Common law requires people to live their own life. Business law allows for propriety. In reality, any society requires a balance between individual freedoms and the rights of businesses.
I don't think there is such a balance.

Good point. I think that the loss of privacy is simply theft. "Marketers spent an average of $567 advertising to each person in the US last year". A significant portion of that value is tied to what should be private information. If you consider the ad spend on someone in a choice demographic I'm sure it's in the thousands.

If someone is going to sell me I want to be the one deciding to do it AND the one getting paid.


Why should you get paid for buying something??

Ads are nothing more than the same thing that happens in any market you happen to be wandering in...people hawking their wares. They see you pass by. Your presence there is not private. They will try to sell you something.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2019 00:07
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Common law requires people to live their own life. Business law allows for propriety. In reality, any society requires a balance between individual freedoms and the rights of businesses.
I don't think there is such a balance.

Good point. I think that the loss of privacy is simply theft. "Marketers spent an average of $567 advertising to each person in the US last year". A significant portion of that value is tied to what should be private information. If you consider the ad spend on someone in a choice demographic I'm sure it's in the thousands.

If someone is going to sell me I want to be the one deciding to do it AND the one getting paid.


Why should you get paid for buying something??

Ads are nothing more than the same thing that happens in any market you happen to be wandering in...people hawking their wares. They see you pass by. Your presence there is not private. They will try to sell you something.


Privacy online, and on the phone, has always been a myth. Landlines where special, but still not completely private. Hackers have to basically stumble on to a way past security, but some people already have the key. Everything has a price. When someone hands you something useful, or of some value, cheap or free, you have to know that there is a higher value to them.
04-10-2019 01:35
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
I can clarify this for you. It applies to all of New York City. Any person can file a "complaint" to the Commission regarding any "discriminitory act," and if the Commission deems...your errant pronouns were microaggressing...

The Age of Feelings has replaced the Age of Reason, so what do you expect? If you must go, stay only long enough to see the Metropolitan Museum of Art and, of course, Trump Tower. Then flee to Vanuatu, where you'll find more realism in a cargo cult than you will in the Big Apple.
~


Still, like Hans Bader at Liberty Unyielding, I doubt whatever the city's doing will make it through the US appeals courts, especially if they try to smash a bodega with a quarter-million in fines to put it out of business.

tmiddles wrote:
If you don't believe that people you loath should be able to do things you wish they wouldn't then you don't believe in freedom at all.

They used to call it "live & let live." It's a value we're losing even out West, beginning with hair-pulling in school, I reckon, except it's cultural appropriation for wearing jheri curls at San Francisco State on YouTube. Harassment, following people around to taunt them after they've asked you to leave them alone, has long been illegal and we thought that was enough to deal with unwanted speech.

Now you have to worry about pronouns. English had five of them in 1980, plus plurals and possessive forms for these. The number has grown to about 42 for New Yorkers since then, and I assume you may be called on the carpet if you use the wrong one. I dunno. I don't sugarcoat my speech to please people, but I will stop yakking if asked, and I don't watch transgenders to see where they go to the bathroom. I'm not a supervisor of others' personal lives.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Trump Skips another Climate Change Meeting With World Leaders...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Libertarians will Love what Trump did Today6806-11-2019 02:07
Former WH Chief of Staff warned Trump428-10-2019 18:27
Trump is Required to Help Zelenskyy1911-10-2019 21:28
Trump Sued Over New Coal Rules014-08-2019 02:37
Trump Friend Jeffrey Epstein316-07-2019 20:39
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact