• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

Sad, sad state of affairs when all demo's have these days are personal smears, and conspiracy theory.


j-mac

yes, and this propensity of the party in power to go personal is not confined to california

it's nationwide, all can see

even abc, yesterday:

Vote 2010 Elections: Democratic Closing Argument: Personal Attacks - ABC News

in TIMES LIKE THESE, in california and coast to coast, the campaign for control coming from the crew currently in charge is all about whores and witches

republicans, in contrast, are "foaming at the mouth," according to gallup this morning, eager to talk about our TROUBLES, our TODAY, our 2010

y'know, JOBS, the economy, the spending and borrowing and deficits, taxes, the lack of results, the unreadable and unworkalbe leviathans of legislation which leadership has leveraged on us

that leadership can't even begin to address these epic concerns in our troubled times is disgraceful

here in CA, a festering sore, inimical issue NOT on many folks' radar screens is this sacrifice of the CENTRAL VALLEY for some stupid smelt

i'm on the western edge of that once burgeoning loamland, i've had my eye on merced and stockton and modesto and fresno for months

there was a poll this week outta CA20, jim costa, that had the 3 term incumbent trailing by TEN

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - California 20th District - Vidak vs. Costa

it's susa, as reputed a congressional pollster as we have

it's all rather to be expected, the suffering along the san joaquin is so real

CA20, the south central valley (CA18, dennis cardoza, comprises the north) is SIXTY THREE % hispanic

unemployment in some of the dustbowls is FORTY %

i wonder if the times/usc and field, when they drew up their sample, accounted for hispanic sentiment in the central valley

i wonder what turnout model cnn/time used, i wonder what actual turnout is gonna ultimately manifest itself

the groundswell is all gop, the earlies are enormous, and according to gallup, pew, battleground/gwu and nbc/wsj TODAY momentum is mounting in the last few days for a massive makeover

Key Bloc Of Voters Flocks to The GOP - WSJ.com

i don't know what's gonna happen to moonbeam and barbara the bitch boxer

but i know that a LOST central valley is very problematic for progressive prospects here on the left coast

and i feel that i9's are not really what these elections are about

either way, enjoy tuesday

it's gonna be very exciting
 
Last edited:
Do you think someone here illegally and who lied on a federal form should be doported or not. Simple question.

In this case she should be put in jail first, then deported after she served her time.
 
I knew that you didn't live in CA - you just took Meg's side because she happens to be the Republican and most Reps/cons don't care what their candidates do, as long as they are Reps they will defend and vote for them.

Not true. I am defending Meg because she did nothing wrong in this instance. However, to prove you wrong and because it's just so easy... There are republicans that I will not defend and will be happy to criticize. For example, I will criticize Bush 1, Christine Odonnel, the guy that stepped on that girls head. However, just as most democrats will vote for democrats, I will typically vote for republican. Having said that, though, there is a democrat I have voted for. I will vote for that same democrat, when he comes up for re-election - which I think is Tuesday.

Like I told you before, I guess it went over your head. I know that you claim that Nicky paid her taxes and so did Whitman, but that has not been verified by IRS, so until it is, it is a moot point.

The IRS doesn't affirm that people have paid their taxes. For instance, I never once heard them state that you paid your taxes. Using your logic (I use that term quite loosely) you are obviously a tax evader. Instead, what the IRS does is affirm, through charges, that taxes have not been paid. No one with any knoweldge (including the IRS, Meg, the maid, the attorneys, etc) have contradicted the statement that the maid's taxes were paid. The only people that are contradicting, are people that have no clue (such as you) but instead have an axe to grind.
 
ahnahld was once a republican, that was a long time ago

to understand california politics, in my opinion, you must appreciate what happened to the gubernator and how it happened

gray davis became only the second gub in us history to be RECALLED in 2003

that november ahnahld won the special in a crowded field by a plurality of 17

ahnahld was intimidating, ahnahld was a star, ahnahld marched on sacto to kick some butt

he immediately ran into the logjam that has prevailed there for the better part of a decade

we are a state where pretty much the entire delegations from the 2 major population centers, the bay area in the north and city of angels down south, are not very many steps removed from whatever it is style of politics you want to call it that comes out of places like san francisco, berkeley, oakland, richmond...

pretty much the entire bay area caucus, for instance is comprised rather comprehensively of clones of nancy, her creations and sycophants

lynn woolsey, leader of the house progressive caucus, comes from marin, just across the golden gate from frisco

george miller, house author of obamacare, comes from richmond/vallejo

barbara lee in oakland/berkeley, john garamendi from the once wealthy tri valley, jerry mcnerny in my district out here in the east bay/delta, jackie speier in south sf, the old home of looney tom lantos

spitting pete stark in hayward/fremont, half the silicon valley (680S over the sunol grade is one of the cruelest commutes in the country)

anna eshoo on the peninsula, palo alto south to san jose, also silicon rich

mike honda in still wealthy santa clara county and zoe lofgren in san jose proper---they're all loyally in lockstep with their leader

yes, we are a state with some pretty dark blues

but in sacto the reds, led by terrible tom mcclintock, need only ONE THIRD plus one to put a STOP to any germ of a tax hike

we've been stuck here forever, we are a dying state because of our budget's burgeoning bankruptcy, and yet sacto is pretty much CONSITUTIONALLY incapable of contemplating even an ounce of remediation

so ahnahld's method of dealing with the recalcitrants way back then was to threaten and then actually to call his 2005 special election

it was glorious, the 4 propositions the weightlifter championed, so perfectly crafted, timed and placed

no abortions for underage girls without at least the notification of a parent, reform of public teacher tenure, no union dues for campaign unless specifically ok'd by member's signature, and a spending cap

they were great propositions, they were well written, no one really tore any holes in them

the cta and seiu, of course, but especially the nurses went after the gub, he called out the hospital employees in the paper pajamas

they kicked his ahnahld ass, 4 for 4, special election, 2005

he's been a phantom since, a cardboard gubernator

we have been completely leaderless, solutionless, yet all knowing all the while we're fast slipping into the pacific

foreclosures are everywhere, even in the trivalley, even in santa clara, home values are in the basement

californians know we are on a certain course to insolvency and yet we have NO faith, no hope, only despair for any kind of political solution coming from sacto

and we've felt this way for years

and, worse, the assemblies themselves have thrown in the towel, no one up there is gonna go out on a limb and propose anything that might be controversial

they've given up, we've given up

in the special election of last year, may, 09, emergency "one time allocations" of income tax revenues, tobacco taxes, lottery proceeds, all to stitch together for a few more months the tattered bottom lines of our broken budget, were busted, 6 for 6, all beat down by almost two to one

THAT was sea change out here on the left coast

californians have become cynical but not cold

jerry brown is a ridiculous figure, out here in california and pretty much across the country

he's the candidate only because our other top dems---cruz bustamante in sacto, villairagosa in la---are too tied to the top, too tainted

gavin so good looking newsom in sf was a fresh face til we all learned how he'd treated his so called best friend and campaign manager

if the 7 million residents of the central valley, 4.5 million of em hispanic, abandon the party of bustamente, boxer and brown...

either way, a state that was once reliably blue is now, empirically, half red

we'll see what it all means
 
Last edited:
In this case she should be put in jail first, then deported after she served her time.
If Meg Whitman wants to criminalize employers who hire illegal immigrants, then she should be the first to get charged.
 
If Meg Whitman wants to criminalize employers who hire illegal immigrants, then she should be the first to get charged.

You need to understand what happened here.

The woman needs to go to jail for getting a drivers license, under penalty of perjury, under false pretenses.

The state should prosecute here for the fraud, not for being inthe country illegal.

This woman broke a ton of laws and she should pay for that then get deported.

I assume by your comment that you beleive she knew the woman was illegal.

What would you have done that Whitman did not do to insure this woman was in the country legally?
 
You need to understand what happened here.

The woman needs to go to jail for getting a drivers license, under penalty of perjury, under false pretenses.

The state should prosecute here for the fraud, not for being inthe country illegal.

This woman broke a ton of laws and she should pay for that then get deported.

I assume by your comment that you beleive she knew the woman was illegal.

What would you have done that Whitman did not do to insure this woman was in the country legally?
In California, almost everyone knows that most Hispanic housekeepers are illegal immigrants and that anyone can buy a DL and SS in Los Angeles. So either Whitman was very naive or she didn't care about Nicki's legality. And if she was naive, then she doesn't have the intelligence to run a state like California and if she didn't care, then she's a hypocrite. Either way she loses on this issue.
 
In California, almost everyone knows that most Hispanic housekeepers are illegal immigrants and that anyone can buy a DL and SS in Los Angeles. So either Whitman was very naive or she didn't care about Nicki's legality. And if she was naive, then she doesn't have the intelligence to run a state like California and if she didn't care, then she's a hypocrite. Either way she loses on this issue.

Are you aware there are a lot of legal hispanic residents in California. There are even more people of hispanic decent that were born in California.

You didn't answer the question. What would you have done that Whitman did not do to insure the woman was legally able to work other than assume she was illegal which of couse is biased against hispanics.
 
Are you aware there are a lot of legal hispanic residents in California. There are even more people of hispanic decent that were born in California.

You didn't answer the question. What would you have done that Whitman did not do to insure the woman was legally able to work other than assume she was illegal which of couse is biased against hispanics.
Yes, I am aware there are many legal Hispanic residents in California and many of them became legal thanks to Reagan's amnesty program.

I lived in LA for 20 years and I have hired many housekeepers over the years and I didn't care if they were legal or not and I'm pretty sure Whitman didn't care either when she hired Nicki. Don't ask, don't tell, is the American way.

You are the one who is biased if you would put an illegal immigrant in jail simply because they came here to find work. It shows you don't understand or even know what the American free trade agreement NAFTA did to Mexico's economy and why so many of their people risk their lives to cross the border. The US free trade policies bears most of the blame for the mass illegal immigration from Mexico. What we sowed, so shall we reap.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/182-183/Cover06.doc
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am aware there are many legal Hispanic residents in California and many of them became legal thanks to Reagan's amnesty program.

I lived in LA for 20 years and I have hired many housekeepers over the years and I didn't care if they were legal or not and I'm pretty sure Whitman didn't care either when she hired Nicki. Don't ask, don't tell, is the American way.

You are the one who is biased if you would put an illegal immigrant in jail simply because they came here to find work. It shows you don't understand or even know what the American free trade agreement NAFTA did to Mexico's economy and why so many of their people risk their lives to cross the border. The US free trade policies bears most of the blame for the mass illegal immigration from Mexico. What we sowed, so shall we reap.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/182-183/Cover06.doc

What you say doesn't make any sense but don't let that stop you.

If a person doesn't care if a worker is illegal they wouldn't jump through all the hoops she did to be legal on everything.

You can't read very well can you? I said she needs to be jailed for falsifying information to the California DMV and to other agencies. It is a felony to sign a document under penalty of perjury when you know the information is false. She did that more than once. Do you think she gets a pass because she is inthe country illegally and maybe you think US law does not apply to her. I don't know why some people think it is OK to break the law with no consequences. Identity theft is also a crime and she should be prosecuted for that, and if the person knowingly gave her permission to use her SS number, she needs to be jailed as well. If there were some kind of consequences to illegal action, maybe some of these people would think twice about doing some of this ****ed up ****.

The people crossing the border looking for work "to feed their families" are the losers of society. You can keep them. We don't need them back here in Mexico.
 
What you say doesn't make any sense but don't let that stop you.

If a person doesn't care if a worker is illegal they wouldn't jump through all the hoops she did to be legal on everything.

You can't read very well can you?
What is your problem? Do you think your snarky insults will somehow make you appear intelligent or convince me you are right? Well, you couldn't be more wrong.

I said she needs to be jailed for falsifying information to the California DMV and to other agencies. It is a felony to sign a document under penalty of perjury when you know the information is false. She did that more than once. Do you think she gets a pass because she is inthe country illegally and maybe you think US law does not apply to her.
I don't give a rat's ass what you said. Nicki wouldn't have had to falsify her documents if she wasn't an illegal immigrant and if you can't understand that then you don't understand anything.

I don't know why some people think it is OK to break the law with no consequences. Identity theft is also a crime and she should be prosecuted for that, and if the person knowingly gave her permission to use her SS number, she needs to be jailed as well. If there were some kind of consequences to illegal action, maybe some of these people would think twice about doing some of this ****ed up ****.
I seriously doubt there is a person in this country that hasn't broken a law or two, including you. Laws are meaningless unless they are enforced and/or obeyed. Few people cared about the immigration laws until a few white supremists in Arizonia decided they could get rich off the federal government by imprisoning illegal immigrants in private prisons. I think the motive behind the sudden interest in anti-immigration is dispiciple.


The people crossing the border looking for work "to feed their families" are the losers of society. You can keep them. We don't need them back here in Mexico.
"Losers of society?" Geez, and you had the nerve to call me biased? And what do you mean you "don't need them back here in Mexico?" Are you living in Mexico and exploiting their cheap resources while you whine about the laws in the US?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am aware there are many legal Hispanic residents in California and many of them became legal thanks to Reagan's amnesty program.

I lived in LA for 20 years and I have hired many housekeepers over the years and I didn't care if they were legal or not and I'm pretty sure Whitman didn't care either when she hired Nicki. Don't ask, don't tell, is the American way.

If she didn't care then why go through hiring through an employment agency and asking for all those documents?

You are the one who is biased if you would put an illegal immigrant in jail simply because they came here to find work. It shows you don't understand or even know what the American free trade agreement NAFTA did to Mexico's economy and why so many of their people risk their lives to cross the border. The US free trade policies bears most of the blame for the mass illegal immigration from Mexico. What we sowed, so shall we reap.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/182-183/Cover06.doc

LOL! Free trade made Mexico poorer? Oh please, do tell.
 
If she didn't care then why go through hiring through an employment agency and asking for all those documents?
Because going through an agency is how most people hire housekeepers. Thats how I hired all my housekeepers. Some couldn't even speak english.



LOL! Free trade made Mexico poorer? Oh please, do tell.
I posted a link if you care to read it.
 
You think Arnold is a Republican? LOL!!!


j-mac

Laugh all you want, that is what he is!


Wiki:
As a Republican, he was first elected on October 7, 2003, in a special recall election to replace then-Governor Gray Davis. Schwarzenegger was sworn in on November 17, 2003, to serve the remainder of Davis's term. Schwarzenegger was then re-elected on November 7, 2006, in California's 2006 gubernatorial election, to serve a full term as governor, defeating Democrat Phil Angelides, who was California State Treasurer at the time. Schwarzenegger was sworn in for his second term on January 5, 2007
 
Not true. I am defending Meg because she did nothing wrong in this instance. However, to prove you wrong and because it's just so easy... There are republicans that I will not defend and will be happy to criticize. For example, I will criticize Bush 1, Christine Odonnel, the guy that stepped on that girls head. However, just as most democrats will vote for democrats, I will typically vote for republican. Having said that, though, there is a democrat I have voted for. I will vote for that same democrat, when he comes up for re-election - which I think is Tuesday.
You are saying that Whitman did nothing wrong because you are taking her word against others. Since it is going to court, it will be decided whether or not she did something wrong. For you to say that before the court decides is so typical of Republicans - they always defend other Republicans before they have all the facts.

The IRS doesn't affirm that people have paid their taxes. For instance, I never once heard them state that you paid your taxes. Using your logic (I use that term quite loosely) you are obviously a tax evader.
When Whitman/Nicky go to court it will be determined whether or not taxes have been paid.

Instead, what the IRS does is affirm, through charges, that taxes have not been paid.
And, since it hasn't gone to court, we don't have word from the IRS. It will be a known fact then, but until then, the IRS won't say that she hasn't.

No one with any knoweldge (including the IRS, Meg, the maid, the attorneys, etc) have contradicted the statement that the maid's taxes were paid. The only people that are contradicting, are people that have no clue (such as you) but instead have an axe to grind.
Taxes were paid to a name that was not Nicky's. Remember, Whitman was sent a letter telling her that Nicky's SSN did not match the name they had for that number?
So, basically, she hasn't paid taxes to her name. So, when you figure that one out, be sure and let us know.
 
Their state is a mess, and they keep voting into power the individuals that made it that way.

Exactly, they need to vote in a Republican for once or their state is going to become a disaster.
 
What would you have done that Whitman did not do to insure this woman was in the country legally?

Meg Whitman, running for Governor, former E-Bay CEO, should be smart enough to know that there is a government service (free) to check out whether your employees are legal.

Meg Whitman should have used it, especially after the SSA notified her that the SSN was a mismatch.

Meg Whitman should be punished for hiring illegals.
 
Exactly, they need to vote in a Republican for once or their state is going to become a disaster.

Ha,ha,ha! I guess Reps/cons don't know that Schwarzenegger is a Republican?

And besides, it was a Republican that put the country in the toilet.
 
I assume by your comment that you beleive she knew the woman was illegal.

What would you have done that Whitman did not do to insure this woman was in the country legally?

These liberals think that just because the woman can barely speak English it was obvious she illegal. I'm sure there are a lot of Hispanics who were born and raised in the U.S. who can't speak English well.
 
When Whitman/Nicky go to court it will be determined whether or not taxes have been paid.
Actually, according to Gloria Alred, it will not be going to court. You can see the video of her admitting this earlier in the thread. I forget who posted it. This was nothing more than a smear by Gloria and the maid, they know they don't have the evidence to take this to court (which is basically what Gloria admitted to when indicating that this won't be in court). Additionally, even if this were going to court, Gloria nor the maid would have standing to file charges for the IRS.

And, since it hasn't gone to court, we don't have word from the IRS. It will be a known fact then, but until then, the IRS won't say that she hasn't.

That's not true. The IRS files charges long before a case gets to court. For a recent example, you can look at the length of time between when the IRS accused Wesley Snipes of tax evasion and when the case actually went to court.

Taxes were paid to a name that was not Nicky's. Remember, Whitman was sent a letter telling her that Nicky's SSN did not match the name they had for that number?
So, basically, she hasn't paid taxes to her name. So, when you figure that one out, be sure and let us know.
In other words, according to you, Meg Whitman recieved absolutely no benefit from hiring an illegal. Provides evidence that she really didn't realize it. Someone doesn't hire illegals hoping to pay the same wage and all of the taxes you pay to a legal resident.
 
Ha,ha,ha! I guess Reps/cons don't know that Schwarzenegger is a Republican?

And besides, it was a Republican that put the country in the toilet.
Repubs don't know diddley squawt. It was also another Republican governor, Pete Wilson that put California in the toilet and the state has never recovered.
 
Because going through an agency is how most people hire housekeepers. Thats how I hired all my housekeepers. Some couldn't even speak english.

And the Social Security number and all the other documents? Also, since when did not speaking English make you illegal?

I posted a link if you care to read it.

Just summarize for me that trade does not lead to mutual benefits.
 
And the Social Security number and all the other documents? Also, since when did not speaking English make you illegal?
I never said it did.


Just summarize for me that trade does not lead to mutual benefits.
NAFTA allowed the US to export our subsidized corn into Mexico to compete with local subsistance farmers. Of course, the Mexican farmers could not compete with the cheaper imported US corn that was dumped on their markets and so millions of small farmers had to abandon their farms to seek work in the cities or in the US. Those that stayed only do so because now they grow illegal crops such as opium and marijuana. Within the last 15 to 20 years, Mexico has gone from a country that fed itself to an importer of 80% of it's food. Thats what the US free trade did to Mexico and why there are so many illegal immigrants risking their lives trying to find work here in the US and why the drug cartels are having a hey day. Our US trade polices and corporate greed created this mess and because of it, we now have a major national security risk at our border with Mexico where once we had a peaceful and friendly neighbor.

The link I provided on NAFTA summarizes it better....

"....Mexico's southern region was exposed to the massive influx of imports that competed with its traditional production, especially corn. Thus NAFTA not only did not work to alleviate poverty where it was the worst but actively deepened it. NAFTA also stripped the government of many tools for promoting a more even integration of varying regions under a coherent national development plan. This led to more profound regional divisions in the country and heavy out-migration from the southern states to other parts of Mexico and to the United States.....snip

Since market access goes both ways, access to the US market for Mexican fruits and vegetables led to high growth in the horticulture sector but came at the expense of losing national markets for other products. While Mexico experienced over 50% growth in the value of its exports of major fruits and vegetables to the United States, the earnings have been more than offset by the cost of its burgeoning imports in grains, especially corn, which tripled. Some domestic sectors have been virtually wiped out - a recent study notes that 99% of soybeans are imported and wheat cultivation fell by half. With imports accounting for 80% of rice, 30% of beef, pork, and chicken and a third of Mexico's staple - beans, serious concerns about food dependency have arisen.

The benefits of fruit and vegetable export have been limited to a very small number of large farmers concentrated in the northern part of the country, while grain imports have devastated thousands of farm livelihoods throughout the country. Nearly two million farmers have left the land since the onset of NAFTA, eight of every 10 live in poverty, and 18 million earn less than $2 a day.

The displacement caused by massive imports can be difficult to calculate and compensate. Mexican planners anticipated a need for maize farmers to convert but overestimated the growth of livelihood alternatives in other sectors and underestimated cultural resistance to abandoning rural communities. The result was emigration to the United States, rural poverty, increased illegal drug production in some regions, and intensification of farm labour, especially for women.

Moreover, liberalised corn imports had an impact on other crops as well. As the price of corn dropped, livestock producers converted to corn as feed, causing devastation in the sorghum sector. Similarly, although Mexico does not import white corn, processors replaced it with cheap yellow corn in foodstuffs, eroding the domestic white corn market.

Providing access for US agricultural products, instead of 'levelling the playing field' as US trade negotiators claim, allows severe distortions in the value of these goods since many US exports are so heavily subsidised. The 2002 US Farm Bill authorises an 80% increase in subsidies over the next 10 years. The United States has refused to discuss its agricultural subsidies in every one of the bilateral FTAs negotiated to date.

Due to these subsidies, particularly grains are being sold on the international market with dumping margins of 25% or more. This puts domestic production in developing countries, where these grains constitute not just products but the staples of the local diet, at an unfair disadvantage. The resulting dependence on imports also poses a serious threat to food security and sovereignty.

Finally, NAFTA did not even necessarily assure fair market access. In key horticultural crops and others, Mexico has met with protectionist measures from the US in the form of dubious phyto-sanitary barriers, anti-dumping complaints, and other pretexts. The US government also has no qualms about protecting sectors it considers politically strategic....read
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/182-183/Cover06.doc
 
Back
Top Bottom