Murkowski, Paul, McConnell, Tillis, Collins

[pknopp]

If they have Intel on these cartels....yeah blow them up. I've seen what drugs do to people. To hell with these drug cartels. To hell with them.

But the Sacklers are still free.

 

[Nostra]

“Hate” has to be the Trump Cult’s favourite word. You feed off your hatred of everyone and everything.

Hate destroys the haters. Your self destruction is evident for all to see. Your hatred is an expression of your own self loathing.

Hatred is never a reasonable response to anything. But it tells us volumes about you.

Irony overload.

 

[Dragonlady]

So sanctimonious.

And there is additional upside that it keeps you warm at night.

Funny that you think my comments are “sanctimonious”. /

Shortens your life, ruins your health. Hate destroys the haters, not the object of your hate.

Yes the goo is a big tent party with different views

What won’t happen is none of these folks will be spied on or jailed unlike when xiden and Obama were in office

Who did Obama spy on and jail? Who did Biden spy on and jail?

The only pol who is attempting to jail the opposition is Trump.

Trump is a lifelong criminal who should never have been on any ballot.

 

[berg80]

No, you didn't.

The article I provided a link to unequivocally showed the Repub's were not shut out of the process when the ACA bill was created.

Also.........

"Gang of Six" health care negotiations (2009)

• Members: Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Max Baucus (D-MT).
• Goal: To negotiate a compromise on health care reform legislation that could pass with bipartisan support.
• Outcome: The group's efforts were unsuccessful, and the ACA ultimately passed without their bipartisan compromise.

 

[struth]

Funny that you think my comments are “sanctimonious”. /

Shortens your life, ruins your health. Hate destroys the haters, not the object of your hate.

Who did Obama spy on and jail? Who did Biden spy on and jail?

The only pol who is attempting to jail the opposition is Trump.

Trump is a lifelong criminal who should never have been on any ballot.

Both spied on Congress and Obama reporters as well and both tried to jail their political rivals

Trump and in Obama’s case McDonnall as well

 

[LordBrownTrout]

2011. Please stop.

I could find hundreds of employers being arrested for hiring illegals but I'm not going to waste my time. The liberal mantra has always been to blame the employer and they never suffer conse

But the Sacklers are still free.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I could find hundreds of employers being arrested for hiring illegals but I'm not going to waste my time. The liberal mantra has always been to blame the employer and they never suffer consequences

 

[pknopp]

I could find hundreds of employers being arrested for hiring illegals but I'm not going to waste my time. The liberal mantra has always been to blame the employer and they never suffer conse

No you can't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Americans don't want it." They don't want a ballroom or people being killed in boats without justification or troops on city streets or members of the DOJ/FBI being fired for doing their jobs.

Then Americans who voted for Trump have only themselves to blame: the stupidity of voting for Trump.

Trump made clear his crimes and corruption, everyone knew a second Trump regime would be lawless and contrary to the will of a majority of Americans.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have not seen one employer arrested. Hiring an illegal is a felony.

Not quite a true statement. Let’s correct it.

“Knowingly hiring an illegal is a felony.”

That includes proving mens rae (Latin for guilty mind) meaning the employer knew they were illegal and the action were taken with criminal intent.

WW

 

[pknopp]

Not quite a true statement. Let’s correct it.

“Knowingly hiring an illegal is a felony.”

That includes proving mens rae (Latin for guilty mind) meaning the employer knew they were illegal and the action were taken with criminal intent.

WW

It's not hard to prove.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's not hard to prove.

I didn't say it was hard to prove, I said it was an element required to be proven.

It depends on the situtation. For small scale one-offs where the hired individual presented the proper documents (which may have been obtained by illegal means), the HR hiring staff are required to accept them at face value for completion of the I-9 Federal Authorization to Work form. If they appear to be fraudulant on their face, that is a different problem.

On the other hand, large scale conspiracies involving hiring managers and Human Resources, where steps and processes didn't comply with employment law may be easier. Depending on scale and the ability to prove intent, the result could be civil penalitieis or criminal prosecution.

I work in Human Resources*** and the current I-9 system sucks, even E-Verify has a lot of requirements and mandatory actions if a negative result is returned. IMHO, the E-Verify needs to be strengthed to the point where employers can take immediate action but to do that improvements need to be made to preclude incorrect negative results so that employers can be (a) required to use it, and (b) be able to take action on the results without liability.

WW

(*** Luckily I work for a government entity that requires not only the normal hiring process, but mandates a 100% background check with the State Police and FBI. ln the decades I've worked there, there have been only a couple of dozen of people apply, got selected, and when they came in for the HR onboarding process and found out there was a background check said "Never mind" and left. Whether they were illegal aliens or they had barrier criminal history convictions they didn't put on their application - I'll leave that up to you to guess as I don't know. They left.)

 

[j-mac]

The article I provided a link to unequivocally showed the Repub's were not shut out of the process when the ACA bill was created.

Also.........

"Gang of Six" health care negotiations (2009)

• Members: Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Max Baucus (D-MT).
• Goal: To negotiate a compromise on health care reform legislation that could pass with bipartisan support.
• Outcome: The group's efforts were unsuccessful, and the ACA ultimately passed without their bipartisan compromise.

Ah, so they brought them in, then said F off....Yeah, that's real involvement...dummy....

Look, it's simple...Democrats are responsible for all of the pain of this shutdown. All they have to do is vote the clean CR in, and then negotiate. But, instead you people are trying to bully the majority into doing what you want, even after the American people rejected you.

Open the government children, then we can talk...

 

[berg80]

Ah, so they brought them in, then said F off....Yeah, that's real involvement

The analogy you used to excuse Dem's being excluded from the intel briefing on extra judicial killings of purported drug smugglers is a false one. Full stop.

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say it was hard to prove, I said it was an element required to be proven.

It depends on the situtation. For small scale one-offs where the hired individual presented the proper documents (which may have been obtained by illegal means), the HR hiring staff are required to accept them at face value for completion of the I-9 Federal Authorization to Work form. If they appear to be fraudulant on their face, that is a different problem.

On the other hand, large scale conspiracies involving hiring managers and Human Resources, where steps and processes didn't comply with employment law may be easier. Depending on scale and the ability to prove intent, the result could be civil penalitieis or criminal prosecution.

I work in Human Resources*** and the current I-9 system sucks, even E-Verify has a lot of requirements and mandatory actions if a negative result is returned. IMHO, the E-Verify needs to be strengthed to the point where employers can take immediate action but to do that improvements need to be made to preclude incorrect negative results so that employers can be (a) required to use it, and (b) be able to take action on the results without liability.

WW

(*** Luckily I work for a government entity that requires not only the normal hiring process, but mandates a 100% background check with the State Police and FBI. ln the decades I've worked there, there have been only a couple of dozen of people apply, got selected, and when they came in for the HR onboarding process and found out there was a background check said "Never mind" and left. Whether they were illegal aliens or they had barrier criminal history convictions they didn't put on their application - I'll leave that up to you to guess as I don't know. They left.)

All violations of the law must be proved. In this scenario no one has the slightest interest in doing so.

 

[berg80]

Look, it's simple...Democrats are responsible for all of the pain of this shutdown. All they have to do is vote the clean CR in, and then negotiate.

Asking for an honest answer. If you were in the Dem's shoes is there any reason you can think of to indicate you would believe the regime when it says it would enter in to honest negotiation, or any negotiation at all, on ACA premiums and Medicare cuts if a CR is passed?

 

[pknopp]

Asking for an honest answer. If you were in the Dem's shoes is there any reason you can think of to indicate you would believe the regime when it says it would enter in to honest negotiation, or any negotiation at all, on ACA premiums and Medicare cuts if a CR is passed?

Both parties have ample reasons to not trust each other. Oddly we will do nothing to change that.

 

[j-mac]

The analogy you used to excuse Dem's being excluded from the intel briefing on extra judicial killings of purported drug smugglers is a false one. Full stop.

What cha gonna do about it? Nuthin' that's what...now STFU.

 

[j-mac]

Asking for an honest answer. If you were in the Dem's shoes is there any reason you can think of to indicate you would believe the regime when it says it would enter in to honest negotiation, or any negotiation at all, on ACA premiums and Medicare cuts if a CR is passed?

You're not going to get anything if you don't...Other than the blame of people out here suffering that is...

You're saying that the only way for the CR to be voted in is for the majority party in power to accept every single one of your demands without question. **** that.

Look Berg, we are broke! In debt up to our eyeballs, and your fighting to increase the debt, for what? Illegal healthcare?

Your polling is at 26% right now according to Quinnipiac. You're going to lose seats in the midterms, out on the streets making fools of yourselves...Wake up man....You're on the losing side here....

 

[pknopp]

You're not going to get anything if you don't...Other than the blame of people out here suffering that is...

You're saying that the only way for the CR to be voted in is for the majority party in power to accept every single one of your demands without question. **** that.

Look Berg, we are broke! In debt up to our eyeballs, and your fighting to increase the debt, for what? Illegal healthcare?

Your polling is at 26% right now according to Quinnipiac. You're going to lose seats in the midterms, out on the streets making fools of yourselves...Wake up man....You're on the losing side here....

So why aren't you demanding the GOP pass a balanced budget? They have the numbers to do that. We are broke but are going to pass even more debt?