Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

Jeff... perhaps a day off of politics would help calm the place down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iam416]

The inevitable ruling finally came after the Supreme Court ruled disparate impact is a viable theory under the Fair Housing Act -- landlords cannot discriminate against tenants on the basis of criminal records: http://www.wtoc.com/story/37217582/f...in-garden-city

Well, the can't discriminate on the basis of criminal record until crime distribution approximates racial/ethnic/gender distribution.

While I find disparate impact utter shit, I do think the ends of this ruling are good with one proviso. First, it's good because we ought not make it incredibly difficult for ex-cons to work back into society. Second, the proviso -- there's no way that the other tenants should have a cause of action against the landlord if that criminal commits a crime against them. I believe that, at least in some states, tenants do have a claim if, e.g., a landlord rents to a known violent felon and that violent felon commits a violent felony against the tenant.

[Kapture1]

I have a rental and i am responsible for illegal as activity that goes on in my house that i rent out. Its my property. So if my tenant is a meth head, busted several times for manufacturing meth, builds a lab ON MY PROPERTY, i am partly liable since its on my property.

I should have the right to decide who is renting my property.

[Ghengis Jon]

You think if you had unquestioned vetting ability (not disagreeing), would you be granting implicit liability / approval of potential criminal activity by approving the property you own and rent? If you're partly liable now, wouldn't that position increase your liability? At least in a court's eyes?

[iam416]

I have a rental and i am responsible for illegal as activity that goes on in my house that i rent out. Its my property. So if my tenant is a meth head, busted several times for manufacturing meth, builds a lab ON MY PROPERTY, i am partly liable since its on my property.

I should have the right to decide who is renting my property.

This is the way disparate impact works: you have a rule that is facially neutral but that results in a disparate impact -- racially, ethnically, gender -- whatever. For example, I only hire people named Sven. Technically that's neutral -- anyone can be named Sven. It applies equally to all races. In practice, however, I hire a bunch of fucking Nordics and no AAs or Latinos or whatever. At that point the group/person that promulgated the rule must come forward with a "legitimate non-discriminatory reason" for the rule. Is there a good reason for my "Sven Rule"? Almost certainly not. It's almost certainly a subterfuge to hire Nordic fucks only. I lose.

The court in Georgia thought that a blanket ban against even renting to ex-cons wasn't such a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. I haven't a clue what the record said, but my guess is that it was too far attenuated from any actual bad acts. Rather, you're using jail time as a proxy for bad acts. In your example, Kapture, you actually have bad acts. I can say this with absolute certainty -- a rule that tenants don't conduct drug operations in their rental has a legitimate non-discriminatory purpose [PROVIDED -- you enforce it on a non-discriminatory basis].

I don't think you need to get too far in the weeds on this -- the Georgia court is probably most upset with the lack of any bad acts. Once you have actual bad acts, then it's easy. But that's the quasi Catch-22 I mentioned.

[Kapture1]

This is the way disparate impact works: you have a rule that is facially neutral but that results in a disparate impact -- racially, ethnically, gender -- whatever. At that point the group/person that promulgated the rule must come forward with a "legitimate non-discriminatory reason" for the rule.

The court in Georgia thought that a blanket ban against even renting to ex-cons wasn't such a reason. I haven't a clue what the record said, but my guess is that it was to far attenuated from any actual bad acts. Rather, you're using jail time as a proxy for bad acts. In your example, Kapture, you actually have bad acts. I can say this with absolute certainty -- a rule that tenants don't conduct drug operations in their rental has a legitimate non-discriminatory purpose [PROVIDED -- you enforce it on a non-discriminatory basis].

I don't think you need to get too far in the weeds on this -- the Georgia court is probably most upset with the lack of any bad acts. Once you have actual bad acts, then it's easy. But that's the quasi Catch-22 I mentioned.

ahhh, gotcha

thanks

[crashcourse]

Regardless, Rosie O'Donnell as Baghdad Sarah, Bobcat Goldthwait as Bannon, Chris Rock as the solitary black guy that stands in the crowd at all the Trump rallies, Paris Hilton as Ivanka, Fredo Corleone as Don jr., and maybe a piece of plywood for Mike Pence.

that was funny

it was a racist comment but he's right

for all the haitian success stories and African stories we want to come up with the culture and living conditions are appalling --a high percentage of criminals/HIV patients and a low percentage of college educated compared to their Norwegian counterparts

you pull a hundred names out of a hat and for every Nigerian prince success story I'll raise you a hundred mali/togo/sierra leone/Ethiopian/congo/Liberian/niger/Burundi/malwai horror stories whom would do nothing but sap our resources and take from the other mouths we have to feed

its a cruel world and you feel bad but his statement was not wrong but you cant do that as president and hope to get yyour policies through

[Kapture1]

Regardless, Rosie O'Donnell as Baghdad Sarah, Bobcat Goldthwait as Bannon, Chris Rock as the solitary black guy that stands in the crowd at all the Trump rallies, Paris Hilton as Ivanka, Fredo Corleone as Don jr., and maybe a piece of plywood for Mike Pence.

that was funny

it was a racist comment but he's right

for all the haitian success stories and African stories we want to come up with the culture and living conditions are appalling --a high percentage of criminals/HIV patients and a low percentage of college educated compared to their Norwegian counterparts

you pull a hundred names out of a hat and for every Nigerian prince success story I'll raise you a hundred mali/togo/sierra leone/Ethiopian/congo/Liberian/niger/Burundi/malwai horror stories whom would do nothing but sap our resources and take from the other mouths we have to feed

its a cruel world and you feel bad but his statement was not wrong but you cant do that as president and hope to get yyour policies through

I think like the vast majority of things, Ben Shapiro is right on the money here

"The second rationale for restricting immigration from so-called s***holes has nothing to do with ethnicity. It?s quite possible, as the White House suggests, that the president meant that if we?re looking to choose immigrants solely based on country of origin ? a dubious and quasi-racist concept that prizes group identity over individual qualification ? we should prioritize immigration from countries that have values similar to our own. Great Britain is more likely to send, on average, immigrants who assimilate more easily than, for example, Russia. That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and language and history; the same president who smacked Haiti said he wanted more Asian immigrants, for example, according to The Washington Post, so this isn't just a question of white vs. non-white. A merit-based individual system would take country of origin into account, but it would certainly not be the primary qualifier."

[froot loops]

Provide the evidence if there are so many examples., 100 bad apples for every success, it should be easy.

[hack]

Oh, and we're not actually going to pretend that there aren't "third world" countries are we? Also, I wonder if there are any studies that break down immigrant success/failure/use of welfare benefits by country of origin?

I also wonder what Canada's immigration looks like since they are more "best and brightest" focused than the US's dumbfuck immigration policy. I would wonder what countries contribute most to Canada's immigration.

If I had to guess, I'd say the Progs have zero interest in any of those questions.

No need for guessing -- I have lauded Canada's meritocratic approach to recruiting foreigners many times in this thread, and you are a reader of this thread.

[iam416]

Provide the evidence if there are so many examples., 100 bad apples for every success, it should be easy.

Immigrants from Central Amercia/Mexico, Caribbean and Africa are considerably more likely to avail themselves of welfare benefits than immigrants from Asia and Europe.

[froot loops]

Immigrants from Central Amercia/Mexico, Caribbean and Africa are considerably more likely to avail themselves of welfare benefits than immigrants from Asia and Europe.

Is that true for African immigrants?

[Kapture1]

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/951813216291708928[/ame]



he doesn't deny that he called those nations shithole countries

[hack]

its a cruel world and you feel bad but his statement was not wrong but you cant do that as president and hope to get yyour policies through

Well, yeah. His statement was wrong, and it's easy to see the statistical evidence of immigrants' net contribution to the economy, or easy to ignore I guess if you don't want the facts getting in the way, but next time there's a stupid Israel resolution at the UN General Assembly it'll be ``Why won't those shitholes vote the way we want them to?" I'm sure for some people it may be emotionally satisfying to have the president voice their feelings but that has nothing to do with achieving any policy outcomes.

[froot loops]

Here is an article on Nigerian immigrants having the highest education in the nation

http://m.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php

Nigeria is the country Trump allegedly said that you can't let them visit here because they would never go back to their huts.