The new lie, "I never said Mexico would write a check."

My justification? No. Being here illegally is breaking a law, sure. Working is also breaking the law, especially with stolen identification. But how it me pointing out democrat cities and elected officials breaking the law as justification for companies to break the law?

How does one justify the other? Why do they get to harbor them at all just because they are here illegally?

 

So, are you talking about CEOs at the top of a corporation for the hiring practices of those on the bottom? Like the CEO of McDs is responsible for a franchisee hiring an illegal immigrant to be a janitor? Does the CEO of Disney have to review every single application of the 100,000 employees that work for them? I get it, you leftist hate those who are the most successful, but how about holding those who actually hire the people accountable, like HR rep or the first line supervisor who is more intimately failure with who these people are. Could it be because those people are typically leftist democrats too since they already let the illegal slip in?

 

DUH, did you know that CEOs get the big bucks because they are responsible for their business?

Obviously not. A CEO should take responsibility to make sure his company is NOT breaking the law.

If he hires people who hire lawbreakers he is STILL responsible.


AND IF CEOs were jailed there would be less illegals hired...and that's a fact.

 

I don't know why they get to harbor them.
I also don't know why neither party goes after criminal employers. Actually I do, the parties want them here. There is no other explanation. They must be a net gain to the economy.
You have a better reason neither party goes after illegal employers?

 

That is not correct. The 2013 immigration reform bill that passed in the Senate but was blocked by Boehner in the House included quite a bit of reforms to keep employers from hiring illegal immigrants.

https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...44-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

E-Verify
What is E-Verify?

E-Verify is an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by comparing information from an employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records. Because the system is not currently mandatory, only around 7 percent of employers in the U.S. are currently enrolled in E-Verify.

What are the main changes to E-Verify in the bill?

Under S. 744, E-Verify will be expanded and made mandatory for all employers over a period of five years. The bill requires identity verification through the use of enhanced fraud-proof documents, such as tamper- and identity-theft resistant Social Security cards, and the use of a photo tool to allow employers to verify an individual’s identity. Employers are required to confirm identity and employment authorization within three business days after the employee accepts the offer of employment. A mandatory entry and exit system will be implemented at all air and sea ports to help ensure that foreign nationals are leaving the United States as required. The bill will take precedence over local and state laws related to the hiring of foreign nationals, creating a uniform national standard. However, the bill does not allow the creation of a national identification card.

What are the sanctions for those who do not comply with the new requirements?

Employers who knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ an unauthorized immigrant or fail to comply with E-Verify requirements are subject to increased civil or criminal penalties.

 

Well, its been illegal to hire illegal immigrants since near the settling of this country.

"Although most of the settlements were made by Englishmen, they nevertheless differed fundamentally in character and purpose, and pursued, in some instances, widely varying policies in the admission of new settlers... For a period of several years, beginning with 1656, the records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and indeed of all of the New England Colonies, except Rhode Island, are filled with legislation designed to prevent the coming of the Quakers and the spread of their 'accursed tenets.' Whippings, imprisonment, banishment, and in a few instances capital punishment, were the order of the day.' To what extent these various laws restricted the immigration of this sect, it is, of course, impossible to ascertain. That they were not prohibitive, and consequently did not meet the expectations of the authorities, is painfully evident; for, in spite of the severe penalties, members of that sect continued to come."
https://immigration.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000023

Odd, the Quakers, were once the Latin Americans of today.

 

You honestly think the CEO is directly responsible for HR people or 1st line supervisors? The CEO is at least 5 if not 10 steps above those who are hiring janitors. Is only the CEO responsible for the illegal getting past the background check or is everybody responsible? I don't even know of a CEO that is actually in charge of hiring anyone, they are typically just in charge of making goals and putting the company in a direction in which will benefit the stock price.

Also, is it the CEO's fault if the illegal who uses a stolen identity to get past eVerfiy checks gets hired? I know you leftist hate the CEO for being successful and all, but you really put a lot on their shoulders thinking its part of their job. Really goes to show how very little you know about being in charge.

 

****************

 

The avalanche of Trumps lies has become such a day to day occurrence that it’s now just so common his comments are now meaningless as his nose grows- longer--longer --- longer---- longer-----------------

 

So, in general, there is a ton to unpack on this, but I'll try to hit the high points.

So, obviously, the fact that politicians lie is about as far from special knowledge as you can get. However, it is trivially provable, or even axiomatic that trump is worse.

I'm with you on the "man in the arena," that doesn't mean a president is free from any criticism no matter how he does. Nobody put a gun to his head to run, in fact, they should be subject to much more criticism.

I'm guessing you understand the problem with this proposition. There are a hundred million Americans smarter than trump, and probably millions smarter than every president that we ever had. Of course that isn't what our system selects for. Of course trump wasn't selected for his intelligence (there is a big argument to be had about what it was, but it wasn't intelligence, in fact it was most likely the lack thereof that gave him the edge, if we ignore putin), but one of the biggest things keeping most people from trump's path is humanity. In other words, somewhere along the line, most descent humans (and most Americans are descent) would be overcome with shame, or guilt and would have stopped. It's kind of like a martingale bet.

 

I'm very biased. I'm biased against trump, biased against flat earth theory, against anti-vaccine ideology, witch-doctors, astrology, homeopathy, and everything else that is patently ridiculous on the face of it. Given a MASSIVE amount of evidence to overcome the MASSIVE amount of evidence against the preceding ideologies, I can be swayed. However, that evidence cannot be simple anecdote and feelings-based. It cannot be "this is a little strange therefore this insane conspiracy theory is true" type nonsense. It must be logical intelligent, well thoughtout, and in general, convincing to a smart person who hasn't already decided it was convincing.

 

Trump worse? Not a chance. Trump is being slandered for every mis-statement. One recently (and ragged over on this forum) was a statement about there being so many hamburgers it would stack a mile high, and some idiot calls this a lie because the actual dimensions don't add up to a mile. That is the desperation level of the left. If you are going to call Trump on "lies" you need to qualify your claim - An intentional untruth designed to deceive can qualify. When you start looking for that- a statement intended to deceive for a purpose of some kind of profit or advantage- the well goes dry.

Until you turn to the alternate choice, of Hillary Clinton. There, you can document lies, deception, corruption and criminality for profit, power and advantage to your hearts content, but let it all slide because she appears to be caring in public.

ALL politicians should be open to public criticism. They know it, comes with the job. You don't see Trump shrinking from that, nor hiding who he is- which at times is a bully, blunt and undiplomatic... because he calls things as he sees them, and he doesn't hide his identity. The American public isn't used to that. Are we offended by his personality, or by the fact he doesn't fake it for us?

We've been spoon fed what we wanted to hear all our lives by politicians, and at the same time- government has failed to achieve almost everything that was promised to us. The fault there lies on both sides. Politicians have conned us by pretending to be what we wanted to see- and we have conned ourselves into buying the idea that a boy scout can run the country by being "nice". Behind closed doors, Hillary Clinton as first lady was well known to be a terrorist- the proverbial bitch on wheels. She insisted people get out of her sight, disappear when she walked down a hall. A secret service agent who greeted her with "Good morning, Mam" was told to "Fu*k off" - and that was normal. And, she calls republicans "deplorable", and the dems buy that, thinking it is because she actually has morals. You may have noticed that the con works, she committed numerous offenses with information, emails, destruction of evidence, numerous things constituting crimes- and that was allowed to slide by as if it were irrelevant. Point is- the public sees what it wants to see, and our perceptions are readily manipulated by those who specialize in manipulation.

Nobody survives in politics without being tough, but virtually all of them hide that from the voters. As the idiocy of liberalism has swayed the democratic party, we are seeing the ugly side of many of them making public appearances today- Maxine Waters telling people to accost those who disagree in public places, the new muslim representative calling the president a Mother- Fu*ker, things like this. These aren't new characteristics in those people; they were there when we elected them- just normally hidden from public view.

Now if there were 100 million Americans smarter than Trump, there would be a lot more highly successful people out there, right? No. The term intelligence is abused every day by the average person. Intelligence, or IQ- does not make you smart of wise. It only measures certain potentials. It not only does not make you an instant success, it actually provides a sort of handicap to understanding the mechanism of average people and a functional world. I have personal experience here- I have a 99th percentile IQ, and that made a lot of things difficult, and I think closed more doors than it opened for me. It is finding what you have and mastering your own gifts that determines how well we do, and that does not come as a birthright- you must earn it in real life experience. I once had a PhD working for me as a warehouse janitor- smart as hell, couldn't do a damn thing well or make a living in his field. Parents paid for his education, got nothing. The point is that what matters is what you can actually do, and when it comes to accomplishments, Trump has done a lot of things that are exceptional. For example, Trump, with no prior political experience, without the financial backing of major political parties, beat the powerful Clinton machine, the DNC and all the media pundits and wise guys calling him a fool for running for president. What's more, he did that with 1/3 the budget and 1/3 the staff of the opposition. Now this is a feat totally unprecedented in our history. Not even close to the rules of political logic, should not have had even a prayer of success.
Trump never questioned it. We have never seen anything remotely like that before, from anyone- including the 100 million people you think are smarter.

Name anybody who has done something on that scale with that much deviation from the accepted standards and opposite the opinions of all the experts. One person.
Then tell us how there are 100 million that could even conceive it possible, after all the history and the expertise says it was a fools fantasy.

Regardless of IQ- Trump is one in many millions. I'm not saying he's perfect, but he is indeed very exceptional in his vision and grasp of problems, his insight and capacity to devise solutions.

Now if he would just fake everything for the public, be humble and gentle and still achieve what he has already achieved in the face of a barrage of obstruction, we would be calling him something akin to the second coming of Jesus.

We ARE that gullible. We like fakes. Down deep we all know nice guys finish last, but we want one to win. The ones who finish first that appear to be nice guys are ruthless behind closed doors- and politics doesn't allow the survival of anyone who isn't. Trump just doesn't know how to be fake enough for us, and I for one deeply appreciate that.

 

Like this?

Trump’s Tariffs Are Producing Billions, But China Isn’t Paying

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-tariffs-producing-billions-090000784.html

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump is right to say that his tariffs are generating billions of dollars for the U.S. But China and other countries aren’t paying them as he’s suggested.
While Trump has suggested on Twitter and in public comments that tariffs are somehow being charged to or paid by China and other countries, trade economists say that’s generally misleading. U.S. importers of record are responsible for the duties, and ultimately U.S. businesses and consumers could pay through higher costs, they say.

 

Says the man who has never played the game..... sort of like saying forcing a walk in a ball game is like giving away score, because you really have no idea what the strategy is. Brilliant.

I think your track record, what you would see if you looked behind you, would be somewhat like a major train wreck.

 

So, his administration started here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...us-president-white-house-barack-a7547141.html

More recently, and dangerously:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...13624-trump-calls-migrant-caravan-an-invasion

or
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...ria-thats-news-to-his-national-security-team/

I know you won't even consider any source of information that isn't hard-right biased, but you still have all these lies to contend with:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

You can't generate a list like that for any other politician.

No he isn't here is a list of times he couldn't handle criticism:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/18...hn-mccain-i-like-people-that-werent-captured/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-security-clearance-revoked-criticism-latest

In fact, he has never handled any criticism in a graceful or manly manner.

Again, he isn't tough, he is the weakest most sensitive person ever in politics. There are nasty personal attacks that always go below the line, calling him a mfer doesn't even touch the ugliness of his comments. The people she called deplorable are very very deplorable, disgusting terrible people.

No... trump isn't successful. Other than his campaign (steve bannon more than trump), and his bad acting career, he has failed miserably at everything he has ever done.

This is actually true.

This is not true

This is not true.

Maybe true, but if so there is more to this story.

100 million people are much much smarter. This was a feat accomplished mostly by steve bannon, that being said, this is a success the way the kardashians are a success. He has some ability to fool people who aren't very smart, but people like joel osteen have done that much more successfully.

You are also forgetting all the money he was given by his parents. There are hardly ANY people who have been given as much for nothing as he was.

There is no evidence that he has a grasp on any problems, or any insight into anything other than firing up his base.

There are no accomplishments, only failures.

He is not a nice guy

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...p-women-grab-international-womens-day-7352406
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...p-women-grab-international-womens-day-7352406
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...p-women-grab-international-womens-day-7352406
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...p-women-grab-international-womens-day-7352406
https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/s...p-women-grab-international-womens-day-7352406

etc.....

 

My.... you are really determined to hold on the the hate.

I never said he was a nice guy! He's not, and I'm glad he's not- nice guys finish last, and a lot of us are damn tired of the wusses that preceded Trump. I guess people who think like wusses approve.


Not an Invasion?
Look up the term invasion.
home invasion is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with intent to commit a crime against the occupants.
Invasion: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
(Alt) an unwelcome intrusion into anther's domain.

How is it that thousands of people intending to make forceful, illegal entry into our nation does not constitute an invasion? OF COURSE it is invasion.
People "just looking for a better life" do not break into your house to get it- unless you look at bank robbers as equal. They too are just looking for a better life.

Trump fights back- you simply don't run over him. Of course, that irritates the people who want to do exactly that without any question of their honor or motives. I approve of that too. I've never seen Trump putting down people without cause.

I could go through your entire list and shoot it full of holes, but you know that. So does every responsible person on the forum, so it dosen't make sense to waste the time.

 

I'm determined to be right. Just like flat earth, I'm not willing to accept bad arguments and emotional pleas, I go with the majority and weight of evidence.

This is not true. Nice guys do just fine when they are competent, at least in most areas. The 'nice guys finish last' thing is usually just an excuse for failure.

So, the private residence part is one place this starts to break down. The idea that this is a zero sum game is another. But in general the notion that this was somehow a threat was a lie, and what he was trying to at least imply. At the very worst, this is a financial burden, at best, it was an economic boon.

This just isn't true. All of those that I listed were put downs that were unwarranted, at least in that manner. Also, ann coulter rolled over him, putin rolled over him, kim rolled over him, he doesn't punch at people in places and times where they can punch back. His 'punching' primarily consists of nasty tweets from behind momma's skirts.

I don't think you can, or you would. But, let's try one that you think you can shoot full of holes, and do so.

 

Most people find that those who agree with them are smart, and those who disagree are stupid. Then they ask themselves why anyone would listen to a stupid person's arguments; discard what that person says and confirm what they already believe by accepting the opinions of others just like them.

This is not true of everybody, and some people are able to mitigate that prejudice to some extent- but the full exceptions are rare. We also don't like people we don't understand, regardless of their performance or skill. Such people are untrustworthy; we treat them with constant suspicion and usually open disrespect. And, we like to call that "discussion".

 

Well........not me so much as trade economists.

"While Trump has suggested on Twitter and in public comments that tariffs are somehow being charged to or paid by China and other countries, trade economists say that’s generally misleading. U.S. importers of record are responsible for the duties, and ultimately U.S. businesses and consumers could pay through higher costs, they say."

With your abysmal record of inaccuracies you really aren't in a position to criticize anyone. Any time you think you can prove me wrong....be my guest.

 

I agree to some extent. However, as an example, flat earth theory is an objectively wrong worldview. There are ways to determine objective truths.

 

I wish there were ways to convince more people of that. When a person decides that 2+2 can be 3 or 5, but never 4 because they don't like someone who believes that...
It gets hard.

 

Yes, and usually that involves a crazy conspiracy theory explaining away all the things that are obviously wrong with your theory.