 |
|
|
|
Thursday, November 10, 2016 - 02:35 am  So is she going to wear an orange jumpsuit or do they still have stripes?
| |
| Thursday, November 10, 2016 - 02:40 am Together with trump?
| |
| Thursday, November 10, 2016 - 07:26 pm You have to commit and crime and be convicted to go to prison. As much as trump thinks he has all the power in the world, we still (at least for now) have a system of laws that govern us.
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 01:29 am Trump is real when he talks about making America great again, but the big changes to USA may not come from him alone...
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 05:28 am Yes, there is more to government than the presidency. Where I live the ballot had 17 propositions for the state, 12 propositions for the city, and 2 propositions for the county, plus candidates. The political ads I got in the mail together weighed about 3 lbs. The many people involved in policymaking were offering lots of choices. Voting took a lot of work.
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 01:37 pm Yes, she has to be convicted through our legal process. However, the 45th president will not be protecting her from the legal process like the 44th was.
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 02:39 pm And what about the 45th president? Shouldn't he be convicted for his crimes?
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 07:11 pm My facebook feed has enough of this shit. I can't handle here too. lol
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 07:58 pm LOL, Zentrino I didn't start this thread. Yeah, if he commits some, he should be charged. No one should be above the law.
| |
| Friday, November 11, 2016 - 10:05 pm Unless he changes the law
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 01:24 am Trump isn't a criminal. Hillary is. His "big trial" is a civil matter not criminal. And food for thought. Martha Stewart is a convicted felon because she lied to the FBI once. Hillary lied 39 times that the FBI evidence listed. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't. Pretty cut and dried IMO.
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 01:49 am I have been curious how this plays out. I see four potential scenarios. 1. Obama pardons Hillary. -I think this may be the most likely. The need to acknowledge that what she did was criminal is great. It is important that our nation's leaders keep certain information secret. A dangerous precedent is set if Hillary's missteps in this regard are simply ignored by the justice department. The statute is clear that careless handling of such information is criminal and does not require the burden of the prosecution to prove intent. That standard is important and necessary to preserve the integrity of our nations secrets. -Likewise, the need to move on from a politically sensitive subject is great. Even the majority of Trump's supporters would likely rather Trump get to work on improving the lives of Americans than prosecute the case against Hillary in a new Trump justice department. This mess was left by Obama's administration that featured questionable leniency by the FBI, who did not review evidence with a grand jury, offered controversial pardons to key players, and handled the questioning of Hillary herself with kid gloves, such as allowing a key aide, Cheryl Mills, to sit in on her questioning. The justice department's top leadership was similarly stained by events, such as the tarmac meeting of Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lorretta Lynch , who herself was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1999 as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Loretta Lynch, who pledged to recuse herself of key decisions in the case, appeared to pull strings behind the scenes against any action on the Democratic nominee for President. 2. Trump pardons Hillary -This achieves the goal of moving on from this mess but unnecessarily stains the new President with a situation that should not have been his to deal with. 3. The new Trump justice department indicts Hillary. -The FBI, despite attempting to take responsibility for the absence of a Clinton indictment, took the position that "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case" despite overwhelming evidence that crimes were committed. Constitutionally, this is not their decision to make. A new justice department can advance the case at their discretion. Such a move would do the most to preserve the sanctity of equal justice under the law. Unfortunately, it would also do the most of creating a distraction for the new administration to tackle its most important priorities. 4. The new Trump Justice department brings no charges against Hillary. -This would do incredible damage to the sanctity of equal justice under the law. The US would be incredibly damaged in its ability to deter and prosecute similar careless acts of others with regard to national secrets.
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 02:45 am I think the majority of Americans have become exhausted over the e-mail controversy. It will continue to become an issue, even if no legal action is taken, the media will keep the discussion alive, especially on slow news days. If Obama pardons Clinton, assuming that it could be proven she did something illegal, it would hopefully just put the whole issue to rest. That's what I hope for anyway, not that I would want her to get away with committing a crime, if that were the case. I just think that we can't afford to be distracted any longer and get back to economic and national security. On that note, it was surreal watching Obama and Trump sitting next to each other in the Oval Office.
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 03:01 am Nothing has to be proven in order for President Obama to issue Hillary a pardon. Precedent has been set when President Ford issued a Proclamation 4311 which stated: " I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974." Note that a simple time period was stated that cleared Nixon of all crimes against the United States. Otherwise, I complete agree with your post. I was a Trump voter in Ohio and could not fathom voting for Clinton who seems to only take actions for her own convenience or enrichment. However, I would rather the Trump presidency be free from this mess entirely of Hillary's and the Obama administration's making. Let the scars of this scandal remain where it belongs.
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 07:40 am Can I get a pardon? Ugh...
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 08:07 am If your sentiment is that she doesn't deserve leniency, I share it. Unbelievable that she was able to go forward as a major party candidate for President in the midst of what appear to be clear violation of statute in regards to protecting national secrets and then compounded by her dishonesty surrounding the matter to the FBI, congress, and the American people that deserves a strong look into perjury charges. As much as I don't understand the loyalty of her voters through this process I also can't fathom the position of those who align with the ideology of the Democratic party and were left with sparse choices for that party's Presidential nomination. The choice between Hillary and Bernie seemed pretty sad and those few other options on the early debate stage were downright pathetic. I wonder if Obama simply banked on Hillary winning the election and having her inherit and deal with this mess with her own justice department and administration. She could have then conceivably pardoned herself or had her justice department turn a blind eye. With her defeat, she can no longer absorb the investigation into a scandal involving her governance and her fate must be determined by Obama or Trump.
| |
| Saturday, November 12, 2016 - 11:24 pm A concise and clear analysis of the situation. Well done. I assume Obama will issue a blanket pardon to protect her from prosecution. And I also assume that her foundation will end up being broken up as it appears to be a direct slush fund for the Clinton's with the money being provided from foreign powers seeking influence.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 02:48 am Maybe trump will pardon Hillary Clinton instead, as if he does a lot of people would forgive him. It is kinda of unlikely though that it will happen.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 02:49 am No one can be sure of what is to happen, it does seem logical for Trump to pardon Hillary Clinton also.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 07:53 am I really hope the matter does not have to be solved by the Trump administration. I am so hopeful for what he could potentially accomplish and don't want any focus or distraction turned to Hillary's mess. Not only do I think an Obama pardon is more likely, if I were Trump I would see if some deal is possible to push for this in return for some negotiated exchange related to Obama's legacy. Remember that whoever does pardon her takes the political fallout. Far better that occurs at the end of Obama's presidency than the start of Trump's. You heard it here first folks. My prediction is that the new softening of Trump's position on Obamacare is part of a negotiation to have Obama pardon Hillary. The highlight of that 15 minute meeting between Obama and Trump that turned to 90 minutes was all about this. The date is 11-13-2016. Some years later I will point to this post and say I predicted it all. I am a freakin genius.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 08:18 am You know, I thought it seemed odd that they had a 90 min conversation when it was intended to be only 10 min; an hour and a half is a long time to talk between two rivals that just spent two years throwing jabs at each other. Then right after, they seemed almost at ease and conciliatory. I think you're definitely on to something. This is probably the answer why; they just saved each other a lot of work and legacy. Obama spares Trump the headache of a Hillary indictment and Trump preserves some of his legacy. They both save face to. Bonus for Trump: he gets to show he is not 100% by the establishment Republican playbook by saving some of Obamacare. He's calling the shots now, not Mitch n Paul.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 12:44 pm The 90 minutes was all about the HRC pardon. It's in the GOP's interest for HRC to face justice. She will take the whole party down with her during her trial. I am concerned that these nightly protests are a strategy the dems are using to pressure trump not to prosecute her. They are continuing, so trump has not agreed as yet. So, Aries you're partially right I think. Very well written as always.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 03:54 pm One thing is certain; this is the beginning of the end of the Democrats and Republicans as we know it. Maybe splintering into factions. Reps- Ted Cruz Christian coalition, Donald Trump populist party, Ryan,Romney,McConnel- center right. Democrats- Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists, then whoever survived any Clinton fallout, the center left liberals. Just a guess.
| |
| Sunday, November 13, 2016 - 05:05 pm That would be a great idea. However the two so called parties have made it practically impossible to accomplish this. In actuality we have a single party with two wings for appearances. The self appointed political elite hated Trump because he isn't a part of that system. The main reason I voted for him actually.
| |
| Monday, November 14, 2016 - 12:59 am Then you have the social justice warriors. They'll follow anyone who shares their ideology.
| |
| Monday, November 14, 2016 - 01:13 am sSleepy toes and muffin man44goes after 37384 email's deleted and aft7er she's called the police and our penis is limp she forgot ONE THING, US, the E1YES are always rov22ing searching recording watc34hing, but we will say THIS guys time to drop dead we16ights drop the Clintons 1855 before THEY step up their actions and DESTROY THE UN9ITED STATES OF AMER2ICA! 02 765 CURious 77 84 wanted stranG666E YOU oK! 1874?
| |
| Monday, November 14, 2016 - 11:23 pm Hello Aries! I've been popping in to try and catch you to see how you are doing. Hope all is well!
| |
| Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 11:21 am As a European I think it's pretty funny that Americans prefer a racist, corrupt, sexual predator who didn't even know he had to hire his own staf for the White House over a woman who has been accused of fewer things and who's less corrupt and has had fewer lawsuits in her entire life then he has per year. It's just an observation.
| |
| Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 05:16 pm The only real threat I can see with Donald Trump is his neglect for the environment. I honestly think Hillary only cares about votes but doesn't actually care for America. Her, like Donald Trump only care about winning. Hillary will flip flop on issues over the years as American opinion changes while Trump stays consistent over decades. Only recently did he say things more pc, simply because of all of the riots and protests by the radical left. I just feel Donald will do as he pleases just like Hillary, I just personally lean towards his views from hers. However I don't see him messing up the country because that will hurt his brand and his name. This is from the most moderate point of view I have. I don't believe Hillary cares about messing up her name after all of the things Bill has done and how she keeps changing her views on things. She will just go back to sleep for a few days. That's just my opinion
| |
| Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 05:41 pm In most countries having your kids advising you is frowned upon but not illegal. Having your kids managing your assets while you're president is never a problem. Giving your children top level security clearance, sure why not? it's not illegal. Having top level security clearance advisors who manage your assets and are your kids... On a side note for those who still thinks trump will come up for the 'little man' there has never been a president with more millionaires and (ex) bankers in his team then trump. And you guys thought Clinton was going to be bad I really love American politics:D
| |
| Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 06:07 pm That racist term gets thrown around too much to retain meaning for me, and I believe most people, anymore. If I am to believe all the accusations thrown around, everyone who runs against the Democrats is a racist. If you don't support Obama's policies, you must be racist. After two terms of Obama, Americans who voted against Hillary or for Trump must be racist. I really think this term should be reserved for the people who deserve it. I sure know I am sick and tired of reading how my vote must be because I am racist, sexist, or whatever or how I am an irredeemable member of the basket of deplorables. In my book, the party who is obsessed with labeling and making assumptions about people based on their color, their sex or whatever has far more problems on the subject. I still don't understand how a campaign or their surrogates can run around and say you should vote for our guy because he is black or vote for our women because you are too. I would think that members of those groups would be insulted at the assumption that their groups' decision for the nation's most important office, the one most responsible for their safety, comes down to race or which clothing isle that person will shop in rather than substantive issues. That this is acceptable practice and not rejected out of hand is a bigger indication of problems of race and a person's gender than any outcome of an election. Yes, Trump is not a typical politician. He has not run for or held public office for. For many of us, that is part of the appeal. Yes, I am sure you can pull up that time he said this or that. His supporters are not going to ding him for not being the most eloquent speaker and will choose to give him credit for speaking his mind, having passion for certain issues, like security and immigration, and not being a typical scripted politician. I am sure anyone with any skill at a web search could look up someone who has been in the public eye for decades and find something that they believe labels them as racist. As far as being corrupt, I believe you are speaking about the wrong candidate. Donald Trump, again, has never held public office. His responsibilities have been to his family, his company, and his employees. He was in no position to make the rules and had to play by such rules, like the tax code, just like everyone else. Expecting him to pay a dime more tax than he legally had to, for example, is just silly. No ordinary worker looks for opportunities to receive a smaller tax return. No corporation or individual hires tax attorneys and accountants to maximize their tax burden. Doesn't that just sound silly? Hillary, on the other hand, has been in public service for decades. It sure looks like the Clintons, in general, have sought to enrich themselves at every opportunity, all the while on the public payroll. While we would expect persons in positions of public power, such as the President, a senator, or a Secretary of State, to be serving the people and looking out for us, it is obvious the Clintons saw these as opportunities to make themselves rich. Further, is it even necessary for me to point out the details in how their "charity" was anything other than parking their political-campaign-in-waiting? This was a key factor in my vote for Trump. He was the opposite of corrupt. Until running for President, he served his family, his company, and his employees and there was no bones about it. It has been the Clintons who owed their power in public office to their voters and, with that public trust, instead courted countless special interests, including foreign donors. Look how Washington DC voted. Hillary carried that town by 93%. Who lives there? Oh yeah, a bunch of lobbyists and special interests who don't have their hooks in Donald Trump. Donald Trump was doing just fine before running for President. I believe it is far more likely he will work for us "common people". Watch now as news services are currently lamenting that they have little clue how President Trump will govern. They are attempting to criticize him on this note, saying he wasn't transparent enough on policy or saying how he is unprepared. This goes to how President Trump isn't bought and paid for in the way Hillary would have been. He has been given the chance by the people to improve our lives and he doesn't owe the lobbyists and special interests anything. Remember when Obama was elected and he said he would pursue his policies regardless and if the Republicans wanted to participate that it would be fine, but they would have to sit "in the back of the bus". I am excited that our new President has a chance to work for us commoners and while that is going on I know where the Democrats can take their seats!
| |
| Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 08:26 pm Ahahahaha. Letsie edited his post. Presumably, after reading my response. He "was" shocked that we elected a "racist" and "corrupt" guy, that led to my response. Let me take a look at his edited objections to Trump now. So, now we are concerned about a conflict of interest between Trump's business interests and his power as President. Fair enough. We should keep an eye on that and I am sure the media will be combing his actions in that regard. For now, however, Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt. There is no comparison with Hillary though, who has proven that her interests come first. I am also far more confident that the media will be more vigilant watching Trump than they ever were for the Clintons. Again, advantage Trump. As far as the rich supporting Trump, I am interested where you are getting this. Hillary had the support of all the well-known rich guys that have bones to pick in the political arena that I am aware of. Buffett? He was for Hillary. George Soros? Well, duh, always pours money into the Dems war chest. Celebrities? Professional athletes? Big money foreign donors? Yep, overwhelming for Hillary. Heck even the Koch brothers, who historically support Republicans, supported Hillary. What biased.. um.. what news do you use to "inform" you of what is going on here (you said you are not in America)? Know that what we call the "establishment", which the Clintons were the embodiment of, includes the all those celebrities, government workers, the rich, special interests, lobbyists of all kinds, and, yes, the media. Trump was the underdog and fought it all and won with the support of us commoners. That is the story of this election. Not that garbage that much of the media puts out these days. Love our politics but attempt to seek a more balanced taste of it out there.
| |
| Friday, November 18, 2016 - 11:18 am Bullseye Aries.
| |
| Sunday, December 4, 2016 - 05:39 am If Trump wants to bring back jobs to America and to lower taxes he simply has to put a 75% tariff on all imported goods and get rid of all other taxes. This would basically encourage business and create millions of jobs. And people wouldn't have to pay any extra tax because the tariff on importation would simply be instead of regular tax. This would basically solve all our problems.
| |
| Monday, December 5, 2016 - 08:57 am Sounds easy but what about our businesses that rely on doing businesses in other countries? Would they not simply match our tariff in retaliation, hurting the businesses that we expect to add good paying jobs? Further, realistically, if the 75% tariff were sufficient to replace all other taxes, would this amount of money entirely be raised by steeper prices faced by consumers? Regular folks need things like gasoline, food, clothes, and such. Poorer folks spend a much greater percentage of their income on such items. Is it possible that increasing prices, whether it is due to more expensive US labor or a protective tariff, would pummel families attempting to make ends meet? These are the folks who seek deals out of necessity at places like Walmart. The wealthy are far more equipped to adjust to such a change, taking advantage of inevitable loopholes to dodge the tariff on more expensive items. For example, they could purchase major items elsewhere, avoiding the tariff and hurting our businesses at the same time. Lastly, is it possible to have it both ways with such a tariff? If so much money is raised for government that it is able to replace all other taxes, is your goal in replacing foreign production with domestic working? On the other hand, if so many additional jobs are created here, producing many or all the goods that we used to import, is the tariff still raising enough money to fund things like the military, social programs, and such?
| |
| Monday, December 5, 2016 - 08:20 pm You Hillary Clinton whiny babies................shush!!!!!!! lol
| |
| Monday, December 5, 2016 - 08:45 pm Who? I already posted I was a Trump voter.
| |
| Monday, December 5, 2016 - 10:59 pm I might have been a little extreme when I said it would replace all taxes. This would probably have to be calculated I would assume and at least some other tax would be necessarily, however my point here is that the tariff would be instead of some other taxes, maybe not all. Regardless having a tariff would bring millions of jobs to the United States as local goods would not have a tariff making them cheaper to buy so people would eventually begin buying less imported goods, and overall it would not hurt the economy because it would be instead of other taxes.
| |
| Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - 01:35 am This article is pretty neat regarding Trump's efforts and challenges in improving our blue collar working class. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/06/im-democrat-but-ive-gotta-admit-its-now-trump-2-dems-0.html
| |
| Monday, December 12, 2016 - 08:56 pm Oh I know you were a Trump support, Aries. lol I find the real political drama almost as good as that in Simcountry! :P lol
| |
| Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - 06:52 am Aries, I'm suprised you believe Trump will save jobs or return jobs for blue collar working class. It's understandable if you voted for him for other reasons, but returning labor jobs? You of all should know that better. After World War 2, most of the world from Europe to China and Japan were devastated from the aftermath of the combat. Most industries were destroyed. This left US as the industrial powerhouse to fill the vacuum and provide the rest of the world with materials whether they were necessities or otherwise. That left us with the 1950's where jobs were plenty and wages were high. But the time has come where that stops when China is willing to do it for pennies on the dollar. It's time to innovate and go for tech jobs and finance sectors. Sadly, the South refuses to innovate like the north has, and they remain adamant that they must bring jobs back that they will never see again. It's like in Simcountry, where newer players may refuse to level up and go for high tech corporations that are in demand and instead say they're okay and are fine with their agriculture corps. As a country, we have to move forward and innovate to something like Germany, and other European countries have done with finance and technology instead of fighting with China for mass manufacturing.
| |
| Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - 05:15 pm * snorts in derision @ SeizeForce
| |
| Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - 11:11 pm Dang, where did I read or see a show on that? It's really quite simple really, the United States consumer is what everyone is courting. When companies like Dell can build a factory overseas and save 1 billion dollars not in construction cost, or labor costs, but corporate tax incentives who's going to blame them. Step one: Lower the corporate tax rate. Step two: Tariff imported products to fair market value inside the U.S. If they want to go overseas and sell it here go for it. If they want to seek other markets, well that too is an option.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 12:05 am Yankee, lowering the corporate tax rate reduces our income from corporations. And second, setting tariffs on imported products leads to higher prices for American consumers. This means more expensive products, and no one likes that. I for one would not like a PC that I can build for 1000 bucks to become 1500 bucks. With that being said, why should we fight China for mass manufacturing when we could go the route of innovation and get jobs in finance or tech sectors similarly to how Seattle, Minneapolis, and NYC have all done? The northern US is being punished for the South's inability and refusal to integrate and innovate. It's not my fault the South cannot find manufacturing jobs. They perhaps should have gotten the training needed to find a job in demand.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 02:44 am When you say setting tariffs on imports leads to higher taxes you are right assuming you keep regular taxes the same. I think you are really missing the point SeizeForce you would lower regular taxes so in the end the tariff would have no affect on taxes. Therefore prices would be higher but taxes would be lower evening out, so it wouldn't be bad. Additionally even though high tech jobs are great it is not practical for everyone to have a job like that, unlike in simcountry you need additional jobs for those who don't go to college perhaps. What you are suggesting would dramatically favor the rich, while having a tariff would bring jobs back to the middle class (Not the Upper class, like Hillary Clinton who is unemployed, probably because the result of the election) would fix our economy.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 02:57 am Basically a tariff has no affect on the total you spend on imported goods and taxes and there is also the added bonus of more jobs. Think of it this way. Before Tariff: $20thousand in taxes per year $20thousand to purchase imported goods per year TOTAL: $40THOUSAND After 50% Tariff Added: $10thousand in taxes per year $30thousand to purchase imported goods per year TOTAL: $40THOUSAND As you can see the total you spend on taxes and imported goods does not change and the government still gets the same income just it gets it a different way. Therefore the only affect of a tariff is increased availability of jobs with no affect on how much you spend on taxes and imported goods. Furthermore if you choose to purchase local goods that are cheaper you would be helping the economy and yourself if the local goods are cheaper then the imported goods with the tariff.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 03:32 am A tariff DOES have affect on the total I spend on imported goods. Not just imported goods, but goods that are made locally. Your argument fell apart when you suggested the US may lower taxes on goods. There's no federal sales taxes that exists currently for most goods. Therefore, no taxes to lower anyways. Trump cannot change state's sales taxes as he is part of the federal government, that's not his call to make. My state will make sales taxes the same on goods whether they're imported or made locally. They don't care. The only federal taxes that exist on goods are gasoline, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and airline travel.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 03:54 am I completely agree with you that Inventor clearly has no idea what he is talking about and a tariff is the wrong idea anyway. Instead of a tariff I propose a full nuclear attack on all countries who are stealing our jobs. Trump could target all cities in china, North and South Korea, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and other countries who we import goods from. Then following the nuclear attack Trump could declare that he is the supreme ruler of the world. And instead of having a tariff he could build collective farms and concentration camps across the world and millions of jobs would be created when he would need workers to manage and operate gas chambers and other parts of the camp. Then he would just need to end unfairness in the economy and create a new currency in which the government distributes evenly thoughout America and instead of making money by having a job you would recieve equal pay regardless of your job. Additionally private health care would be banned and everyone would recieve free government health care. Furthermore to ensure everyone would have a job the government would simply need to issue id's which would include the person's occupation and would of course be mandatory to wear. Then lastly Trump would declare Hillary Clinton dictator of America for life and resign.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 03:56 am Also everyone would get free college, free food, free rent, and free cars which the government would provide, therefore no one would need money or ever worry about our trade deficit with china.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 04:05 am LOL
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 04:25 am Bluestar is just another radical Hillary Clinton supporter. It is actually pretty funny to see Bluestar and SiezeForce express their ridiculous opinions, this thread was obviously intended to be free of extream left wing Hillary Clinton supporters who believe a nuclear attack is the best way to fix the economy and even believe building concentration camps?! This is just plain ridiculous if Trump launches a nuclear attack what do you think is going to happen BlueStar and SiezeForce? Well we are going to be nuked back and all major cities would be destroyed leaving everyone unemployed or dead. And nothing is free, the taxpayers will have to pay for all your free stuff. The answer to our problem is a tariff not a nuclear war.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 04:55 am theinventor, what makes you think I endorse any of his ideas. If you think I'm behind his ideas, you're much of a fool as he is.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 07:29 am It would appear that many want "free" stuff. As Inventor mentioned, nothing is ever really free. The taxpayer will foot the bill. I say, stop being lazy, and earn your livelihoods. All the socialist programs do is put you under the "control" of the government. No, thank you.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 08:56 am The Wicked Lady, I agree with you. I hope Trump and Paul Ryan continue with their plans of cutting off social security. No more free stuff for you, you're on Simcountry all day with no jobs on our dime.
| |
| Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - 04:47 pm Dear SeizeForce, I'm sure your "dime" could hardly cover my needs financially. ha ha ha ha I have expensive tastes. And sorry kiddo, I am a successful business woman who spends less than 30 minutes a week here, if even that. lol When you graduate from diapers, then come play fire with me. Until then, I merely address you for my own amusement purposes. :-)
| |
| Thursday, December 15, 2016 - 11:47 am *sniffsniff* Smells of alt-right in here.
| |
| Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - 05:46 am So what? People here are sick and tired of the status quo we're having right now. -T. Wo
| |
| Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - 07:31 am so we need a tariff to fix the economy, a high one, which would be instead of some income tax and sales tax.
| |
| Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - 07:31 am and we also need a Great Wall
| |
| Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - 11:59 pm Building a wall is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone mention. Take a look at the map, we'd be building a wall over some of the roughest terrain in this country. Not to mention the cost involved. It's not like Mexico is going to pay for it. There is only one way we could possibly afford to build a wall or harden our southern border against intrusion. Shorten the border. In other words take everything down to the panama canal. Even if that were to happen it simply opens up a larger amount of coastline. It's not going to happen.
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 04:19 am All it would take is making it difficult to send money out of the country, and making it a felony to rent to or hire an illegal alien. I guarantee the first rich white CEO or landlord that gets five years in prison will solve the problem.
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 05:18 am Johanas, it's already illegal to hire illegal aliens. Conservatives keep bemoaning on how we need to make it illegal for someone to do this certain thing when it already is.
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 07:16 am The wall would employ millions of people so if it is difficult to build it because it has to be built on rough terrain it will bring more jobs, even though the cost may be a lot in the long run the jobs it brings and the protection it would provide us from illegals trying to steal American jobs would be well worth it. Think about it this way if more people have jobs then the government gets more tax money because more people pay taxes therefore eventual the wall will be paid off once it gets the economy going again.
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 09:09 am Theinventor, you're such a moron with that garbage argument no wonder your country in this game is such a hellhole. It's another welfare project. ". Think about it this way if more people have jobs then the government gets more tax money" No, they wouldn't get more tax money having people build that wall. If you spend a billion dollars on salaries for people (Which the taxpayers pay for) and then tax them 15% of their paychecks, You don't get "more tax money". You seem to think that giving people jobs at the cost of taxpayers will end up getting more money back. That's not how it works moron. Perhaps I shouldn't have told you all of this. Just give me 1000 dollars. Tax me 10% and you'll get more money back! That's how it works, right?
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 09:30 am That moment when conservatives want to build a wall as yet another welfare project they usually complain about. Priceless. :-D
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 10:46 am Exactly. The walls, military, and social securities are their biggest welfare programs. They set up the military to hire people who otherwise can't get a job, promising to pour more money into the military to "create more jobs" this is just another job handouts They will never get rid of social security because most of their votes comes from older people already on social security. And the wall is yet another project to give southern states more welfare programs, even though they can't be arsed to innovate and create good businesses like liberal places do. There's a reason New York, Portland, San Fran, Seattle, Minneapolis, are flourishing. Think of a party that identifies with red color, uses tons of welfare programs and is intent on bringing everyone down into their hellholes. You may be thinking the Communist Party but it's called the Republican Party today.
| |
Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 02:01 pm
It isn't a felony, and the CEO/owner of the company isn't going to prison. Also this argument is never used when beating the gun control drum.
| |
| Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 02:59 pm It is a felony. It is covered under US Code 1324a as unlawful employment of illegal aliens. And no CEOs/owners of companies will ever be jailed because Republicans always consider these people as saviors and job creators who are a benefit to society and must be given excuse after excuse for being an entrepreneur. Ironically enough, the states that have these problems are Republican states where people bitch and moan while electing politicians that look the other way.
| |
| Saturday, December 24, 2016 - 03:04 pm I had a thought while cooking. Hillary spent her entire adult life lying, cheating, and stealing to gain political power. She stayed with her serial cheating husband for this. She embraced whatever harebrained idea the Democrats could come up for this. She lied to every single special interest group who would listen for votes or money even when their interests were completely opposed all for this. She collected a billion dollars to run from Wall Street and rich liberal campaign contributors. She literally stood on the bodies of people who died in the course of this life, gloating all the way. This was hers, she earned it. She owed so many people, so many favors to get to this spot. And she loses to a guy who picked politics as a hobby. That is sweet sweet irony.
|
