The Next President is...

[MooseAg03]

They can as long as you arent being prejudiced against a  protected class...it's called the rule of law...aren't republicans supposed to be the party of law and order? Only pay attention to the laws you like.

I guess you missed the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling supporting the Christian baker and his right to refuse service on religious grounds. This baker chose to stand up for his right not to participate in a practice that he believes is morally wrong and goes against the true design of Biblical marriage. I guess that trumps your protected class argument.

Political affiliation is not a protected class, but choosing to refuse service to someone you disagree with politically is not helpful to where we find ourselves today. Can’t we get back to being normal where we don’t make the simplest things like eating at a restaurant about politics? It’s all so exhausting.

[Lawman]

I guess you missed the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling supporting the Christian baker and his right to refuse service on religious grounds. This baker chose to stand up for his right not to participate in a practice that he believes is morally wrong and goes against the true design of Biblical marriage. I guess that trumps your protected class argument.

Political affiliation is not a protected class, but choosing to refuse service to someone you disagree with politically is not helpful to where we find ourselves today. Can’t we get back to being normal where we don’t make the simplest things like eating at a restaurant about politics? It’s all so exhausting.

The way the media framed that whole incident right up until the Supreme Court decision really showed how biased it wanted to be in virtue signaling.

The guy didn’t refuse to serve anybody, gay or otherwise. He refused to engage in artistic creation via his medium (cakes) for a cause/subject he could not in good conscious support. And then the state came down with what was said by the Supreme Court to be an entirely biased view in which religious consideration in why he would feel that way was invalid and not open to discussion.


Meanwhile the critics of this artist are treating it like a lovely gay couple walked into Joe’s tire shop and cakes and the owner looked up from his copy of Stormfront long enough to say “you qyeers get the hell on out of here, I ain’t got nothing for you.”

[Homestar]

22 hours ago, drewpey said:

On a tangent...lots of snowflakes melting down online about Sarah Huckster-Sanders being booted from a restaurant.  Lots of twitter rage, and completely nuking any review website for the restaurant...very comical.  Seems like you regressives have a bit of cognitive dissonance problem with what powers private businesses should be allowed to do.

She should have asked the chef for a gay wedding cake. 

[HeloDude]

11 hours ago, drewpey said:

...you still support illegal treatment of protected classes?

Probably as much as you support not deporting illegal aliens.   

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Yes. Religion is a protected class in that you can't say, "I don't serve Christians/Jews/Muslims here," but not in the sense that any specific religious beliefs are protected, nor can those beliefs allow you to discriminate against another protected class, e.g. I'm a Jew and therefore I won't serve Muslims, etc.

Since the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary interpret the laws passed by Congress, and the executive branch writes most of the rules that federal agencies adhere to...yes, vote for elected officials who promise to change or adhere to the set of beliefs you share.

It is however a feature, not a bug, that there isn't direct democracy to determine the civil rights of others, i.e. tyranny of the majority. California's Proposition 8 and it's eventual nullification in the form of court rulings is a good recent example of the courts basically saying no, even a popular majority of voters can't decide certain issues.

Like most things, it's not black or white. Standard WIC answer applies: it depends.

I understand you have an answer for my observations of hypocrisy. When the same people tell me Christian bakers must celebrate a lifestyle their conscience opposes, then turn around and say it’s ok for a restaurant owner to deny service to folks whose beliefs they oppose...I see hypocrisy & none of your rationalizations are convincing.

 Our left/right bickering increasingly sounds like a married couple right before they divorce.  Every small disagreement is war; which side will be the first to suggest an amicable separation?  California seems poised to try.

You can say you don’t like Maxine, but as our political polarization increases the moderate voices will be squashed in favor of brash assholes.  I almost commented something similar to your FB post of the George Will article; George is definitely a relic from the era of compromise and he hates the anger of the GOP base.  But folks are pissed on both sides and we can’t compromise.  I don’t believe in the concept of a protected class, how can we even start to have this discussion?

tough times ahead bro.  I wish we could agree on more.

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

I guess you missed the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling supporting the Christian baker and his right to refuse service on religious grounds. This baker chose to stand up for his right not to participate in a practice that he believes is morally wrong and goes against the true design of Biblical marriage. I guess that trumps your protected class argument.

Political affiliation is not a protected class, but choosing to refuse service to someone you disagree with politically is not helpful to where we find ourselves today. Can’t we get back to being normal where we don’t make the simplest things like eating at a restaurant about politics? It’s all so exhausting.

 

It was a narrow ruling that doesn't support using religion to discriminate.  It was a bit of a cop-out, and while it'll be the last we hear of the baker, it won't be the last time this topic is brought up to the supreme court.

There are lots of things being done over the last several years that would fall into the "not helpful" category, but the left is always duped into taking the high road.  I'm happy to see them finally giving the right a taste of their own medicine.

 

53 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Probably as much as you support not deporting illegal aliens.   

Our immigration system is fucked, no doubt, and I support deporting illegal aliens as long as it's done legally and without dehumanizing them.  I don't want to lose my rights because over-zealous CBP or ICE folks want to look good for their boss.  I hold no malice towards most illegal immigrants, but the right wants to make every person coming to the US into a MS-13 gang member...they want to act like it's not large corporations hiring these people money to incentivize them coming here.  The right wants to make it out to be a black and white problem that will only be solved with a wall, getting rid of chain migration, visa programs and no path to citizenship.  It's a much larger problem that we need to work with our neighbors instead of against them.  Safe and functional countries make good neighbors.  If someone has ill intent on the US, a wall isn't going to stop their long journey to the US.  That being said, legal immigration is good for our country, and I think it should be expanded as we draw down illegal immigration within reason.

 

Just to throw another log onto the fire...how about that SCOTUS gerrymandering decision?

[HeloDude]

Quote

Our immigration system is fucked, no doubt, and I support deporting illegal aliens as long as it's done legally and without dehumanizing them.

No...you dont support deporting all illegal aliens, because this would include not supporting DACA, not allowing illegal aliens to attend public school, etc.  And as for not "dehumanizing" them, what in the hell does that mean?  You get caught be here illegally, then you get detained and deported--it's that simple (they need much stricter penalties for repeat offenders).  The left does not support deporting everyone illegally here, hell, they can't even stomach using the term "illegal" when discussing these people; rather they had to invent a BS "undocumented" term.

[nsplayr]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I see hypocrisy & none of your rationalizations are convincing.

Just pointing out SCOTUS precedent which is the law of the land...if that is "rationalizations" then ok, I'm not sure what else to tell ya.

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I don’t believe in the concept of a protected class, how can we even start to have this discussion?

If I may quote a great military leader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." Luckily the Constitution doesn't required you're belief in SOCUTS rulings for them to be the law  

In terms of a discussion, that's harder...agreed that I wish we could agree on more.

5 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

I guess you missed the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling supporting the Christian baker and his right to refuse service on religious grounds.

As was pointed out above, the ruling was "narrow" not in the vote count deciding the case, but in the scope of the ruling in favor of Mr. Phillips. SCOTUS didn't rule that he was allowed to refuse service based on his sincerely held religious beliefs (they dodged that broader question), they instead ruled that the Colorado state agency that originally ruled that he was in violation of anti-discrimination laws had treated his case unfairly and had not actually considered his religious beliefs, as they were required to do.

So BL: TBD on the bigger question. Good extensive analysis of the ruling in relatively plain english found here.

Edited June 26, 2018 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

The left does not support deporting everyone illegally here, hell, they can't even stomach using the term "illegal" when discussing these people; rather they had to invent a BS "undocumented" term.

As a card-carrying member of the left, I will say that I don't support deporting almost any of the people who are undocumented immigrants. Progressives shouldn't hide on this issue and I certainly won't.

The vast, vast majority of immigrants, both those with proper documentation and those without, are working hard, paying taxes, and pursing The American Dream. Immigration has been and continues to be a great source of strength for this country. It is a foundational principle that America is a safe haven for immigrants and refugees fleeing persecution elsewhere and seeking to make a better life for themselves and for their children.

But good people can in fact disagree on the particulars, and I do support locking up and deporting violent criminals as well as strong border security for broader national security reasons almost completely unrelated to immigration.

I applaud progressives for finally starting to wise up and stop using conservative language and moral frames on the issues. Conservatives have generally been much better at framing issues in a way that emphasizes their hierarchical moral point of view and repeating that language and those frames over and over and over again to the voting public.

Progressives need to frame issues based on their compassionate/nurturing moral point of view, and so kudos to any public leaders or regular people who do so on a consistent basis. George Lakoff has written many good books on this topic if you're curious.

So as a progressive, I won't be calling other human beings "illegal aliens" when "undocumented immigrants" will work much better. And it has nothing to do with my stomach, it has to do with my brain.

All children in this country should be attending school. People who have been in this country since childhood are Americans just as much as you or me. We as a country have enough compassion and capacity and common sense to accept those positions. That's a message I'm willing to take to the American people in contrast to the conservative fear-mongering about gangs and rapists and infestation and aliens.

Edited June 26, 2018 by nsplayr

[SurelySerious]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

As a card-carrying member of the left, I will say that I don't support deporting almost any of the people who are undocumented immigrants. Progressives shouldn't hide on this issue and I certainly won't.

The vast, vast majority of immigrants, both those with proper documentation and those without, are working hard, paying taxes, and pursing The American Dream. Immigration has been and continues to be a great source of strength for this country. It is a foundational principle that America is a safe haven for immigrants and refugees fleeing persecution elsewhere and seeking to make a better life for themselves and for their children.

But good people can in fact disagree on the particulars, and I do support locking up and deporting violent criminals as well as strong border security for broader national security reasons almost completely unrelated to immigration.

I applaud progressives for finally starting to wise up and stop using conservative language and moral frames on the issues. Conservatives have generally been much better at framing issues in a way that emphasizes their hierarchical moral point of view and repeating that language and those frames over and over and over again to the voting public.

Progressives need to frame issues based on their compassionate/nurturing moral point of view, and so kudos to any public leaders or regular people who do so on a consistent basis. George Lakoff has written many good books on this topic if you're curious.

So as a progressive, I won't be calling other human beings "illegal aliens" when "undocumented immigrants" will work much better. And it has nothing to do with my stomach, it has to do with my brain.

All children in this country should be attending school. People who have been in this country since childhood are Americans just as much as you or me. We as a country have enough compassion and capacity and common sense to accept those positions. That's a message I'm willing to take to the American people in contrast to the conservative fear-mongering about gangs and rapists and infestation and aliens.

Why should they not arrive properly through a port of entry and use the immigration process?

[Vertigo]

5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Why should they not arrive properly through a port of entry and use the immigration process?

They should. But the process is broke, so they don't.

[RegularJoe]

Is it that the process is broke? Or is it we don't actually enforce it because the public care's more about world opinion then our actual imigration laws?

Every country on the planet is doing the same thing as the United States, if the press would report that then people would actually respect laws of said countries instead of walking over them and claiming it is in human interest.

** My .02 - it is the USA responsiblity to take care of the legal citizens of this country, NOT appeal to people who's first act getting here is to commit a crime against the country by violating it's imigration laws.  Technically anyone who enters a country without consent can be considered an invader, perhaps we should declare war on Mexico for their invasion of the US - oh wait....we did that once already.

 

Sweden is to reject up to 80,000 people who applied for asylum in the country last year, as many as half of whom will be forced to leave against their will, according to official estimates.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/sweden-to-expel-up-to-80000-rejected-asylum-seekers

There are 37,288 illegal immigrants in Israel. 71% of them are from Eritrea, 21% from Sudan, 7% from other African countries, and 1% from non-African countries. Most entered Israel illegally from Sinai between 2006 and 2012, and many live in south Tel-Aviv. Illegal entry into Israel from Sinai during those years was possible because the border between Israel and Egypt was only marked by a low and easily trespassed fence. In 2010, Israel began the construction of an impregnable barrier which was completed in 2013. This barrier has put an end to illegal immigration.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-not-deporting-refugees/

The new Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, began a program that deports Muslims who have ties to radical groups.

And something stunning occurred: the country’s violent crimes are down more than 31% in less than a year since Muslim deportations began

https://toprightnews.com/heres-what-happened-when-one-nation-started-deporting-radical-muslims/

Other countries following suit.

• Italy
• Bulgaria
• England
• Germany
• Russia

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by RegularJoe
grammer during my rant

[HeloDude]

26 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

They should. But the process is broke, so they don't.

So if I believe our tax code is broke then I can intentionally not adhere to it (i.e. not pay my taxes) and progressives will support me in doing so?  Haha--fat chance...

Progressives want illegal immigration for future votes because they know that historical data clearly shows that immigrants (once they are given amnesty/apply for citizenship) and their children are much more likely to vote for politicians that support an increase of social programs.  Plenty of research which discusses this in detail--let me know if you need the links.  Businesses obviously support illegal immigration because of the cheap labor...something the traditional GOP always supported until the issue was made to the lower/middle class Americans.

[Homestar]

Malcom Gladwell’s most recent episode of his podcast addresses the issue of Mexican migration. It doesn’t follow the classic immigrant fairy tale Americans like to hear based on the Italian and Jewish migrations of the previous century in that Mexicans tend to be seasonal migrant workers that return to their homes in Mexico after the season is over. So, sealing and enforcing the border actually led migrants to stop returning to Mexico after the growing season because it became too difficult to re enter the country for the next season. As a result we have the dreamer phenomenon of the current decade based on immigration policies from a generation ago. 

No real point to this but to point out an interesting difference between Mexican immigration and the Statue of Libery poem. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Homestar

[Guest]

The vast, vast majority of immigrants, both those with proper documentation and those without, are working hard, paying taxes

Since when? How many illegals (excuse me, undocumented immigrants) are paying Federal or State income taxes, social security, etc? Maybe they’re getting hit with local sales tax, but they’re hardly contributing what’s required of them by our tax code.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:

Since when? How many illegals (excuse me, undocumented immigrants) are paying Federal or State income taxes, social security, etc? Maybe they’re getting hit with local sales tax, but they’re hardly contributing what’s required of them by our tax code.

“How Much do Undocumented Workers Pay in Taxes?

The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.”

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-federal-taxes-an-explainer/

If you’re big beef is that undocumented immigrants aren’t paying their fair or taxes, even after considering the data above, then let’s bring them out of the shadows, get them work permits, and make them subject to the same taxes that citizens have to pay. I’m all for that solution. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by nsplayr

[TreeA10]

They might pay $9 Billion but what do they cost in local, state, and federal dollars?

https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf

Answer: A hell of a whole lot more at $113 Billion. 

[Homestar]

How does an undocumented immigrant pay taxes if they do not have a SSN or ITIN. Honest question. 

[nsplayr]

That is discussed in detail at the link in my previous post. 

[HeloDude]

14 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

That is discussed in detail at the link in my previous post. 

How about you respond to his question regarding income taxes?...you're intelligent enough to know the difference between income tax vs FICA taxes.

[BashiChuni]

as a nation of laws it just blows my mind that half of the country has zero issue with people coming here illegally. 

Illegal immigrant does not equal immigrant. That’s where the left and press are getting it wrong. 

No one is entitled to come here illegally. But that’s sure how the left sees it. 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by BashiChuni

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

How does an undocumented immigrant pay taxes if they do not have a SSN or ITIN. Honest question. 

Huh, I learned something today.

 

Quote

How can Undocumented Immigrants be Hired Without a Social Security Number?

Since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all employers are required to verify the work eligibility of all new hires by completing Form I-9, which mandates the employee provide a Social Security number and show documents to their employer to prove work authorization and identity. U.S. citizens frequently show their driver’s license and Social Security card, but because there are a number of documents that can be used to complete the form, the worker does not necessarily need to show their actual Social Security card. Undocumented workers who are hired without valid work authorization may provide their employer a fake Social Security number, someone else’s number, or even a previously-valid number issued when they may have had work authorization that has since lapsed. Furthermore, most employers do not—and, except for certain employers,  are not required to—verify this information with any government entity at the time of hire. Additionally, employers cannot, by law, ask to see any specific or additional documents other than what the worker provides, so the Social Security number provided by an undocumented immigrant on their Form I-9 would be used by the employer to withhold payroll taxes and would be included on their W-2 form.

What Happens if an Undocumented Immigrant Uses a Fake or Someone Else’s Social Security Number?

The employer will withhold federal and payroll taxes as with any other employee and report that to the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). SSA notes when a name and number on a submitted W-2 do not match the Social Security records and may notify an employer, but it has no authority to enforce penalties. The IRS does have enforcement power, but it rarely investigates employers—even those with a high number of suspect W-2s—both as a matter of limited resources and because of the relative ease with which the employer can show it did its due diligence as required by the law to ask the employee for a corrected number. Further, since the penalty is only a $50 fine for each mismatch, it generally is not worth the government’s time to pursue it. Even if an employer is notified of a mismatch, under immigration law it is not considered proof that a worker is undocumented, so all the employer can do is ask the employee to correct their information. Taking any sort of action to terminate the worker could violate anti-discrimination law.

How do Undocumented Workers File Tax Returns Without a Valid Social Security Number?

Though certain non-citizens are eligible for to receive Social Security numbers to pay taxes, unauthorized immigrants are ineligible to receive one. However, it is still law that individuals who reside in the United States, whether legally or not, and earn income here must pay taxes on that income, and file a tax return, regardless of whether the income was earned as an undocumented worker—a complicated legal conundrum.

Further, the IRS will not allow a tax return to be filed with a fake or stolen Social Security number. Therefore, unauthorized workers who wish to file their taxes–and potentially get future credit for it— must find another way. Thus, many use the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, which allows immigrants without Social Security numbers to legally file tax returns and claim the income reported on their W-2’s to the IRS.

 

[Homestar]

So they use a stolen SSN or obtain an ITIN somehow. 

I’m not okay with using stolen SSNs. So I guess that makes me a racist. :::shrug::::

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

as a nation of laws it just blows my mind that half of the country has zero issue with people coming here illegally. 

Illegal immigrant does not equal immigrant. That’s where the left and press are getting it wrong. 

No one is entitled to come here illegally. But that’s sure how the left sees it. 

The old "left" of Carter and Bill Clinton are no longer driving the agenda of the Dems today...the progressives are.  Bill Clinton said he was very much against illegal immigration in the mid-90s.  The progressive left desires much bigger government control, more social programs (which require higher taxes), etc. And when studies show that immigrants, specifically those from Mexico and Latin America, are much more likely to support an increase in government funded social programs...well, there you go.  And the tradional GOP doesn't want to stop illegal immigrantion outright because that goes against cheaper labor.  So here we are.  And who loses: The middle class taxpayer, lower income Americans who work in construction, Americans who live in areas that have seen an increased amount of gang activity made up of illegal immigrants, etc.

It's sad...but when you hate what America has mostly been over the last few decades and believe it needs fixing (ACA, public option, higher taxes, etc), then this is how you see the "change".

[HU&W]

On 6/25/2018 at 3:49 PM, nsplayr said:

 

What do you think he means when he says, "Be careful what you wish for Max!" to his very large audience of followers?

I think he's cautioning her against the legal consequences of encouraging mob violence should her followers follow her prompting.  Or, it could be a reminder that this is an election year, and the political ramifications of people following her advice could negatively affect her chances.