Leaving America for England!

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

Given I'm not certain of the OP, I haven't had the courage to click on the link she posted. Has anyone found out what it goes to?

It links to an income tax calculator site for the UK. I am going to delete that link but allow the thread to remain. Appears banning that spammer is in order as well. Sorry, I should have checked that embedded link early on.

But I think we can still have a lively discussion out of this.

Originally Posted by hotlips

. . . by SAYING he's against foreign workers coming here but going out of his way to HIRE them for his own projects, . . .

I don't think he's against foreign workers coming here; he just wants them to come here, and remain here, LEGALLY.

Originally Posted by hotlips

by cheaping out on safety features (sprinklers!) in his buildings (a man DIED in that fire!)...

I saw a film clip that said, at the time that building was constructed, sprinklers were not required to comply with current building codes. Yes, he should have installed them anyway, but was not required to do so.

Originally Posted by hotlips

His entire focus is on what's good for lining his own pockets . . .

He does/will donate his entire annual salary of $400k. Giving away $1.6 million over his 4-year tenure, is hardly focusing on lining his own pockets.

I don't love the guy, and cringe when listening to the flat tone of his speaking voice, but I do agree with some of his ideas.

Kathy

sneaky op, I didn't even notice the link, good catch Helen

Both sides do this. They can take War and Peace and edit info down to 10 pages


The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

The Uranium sold was owned by Canada. US only had to approve the sale since it resides here.

Originally Posted by JColt

Both sides do this. They can take War and Peace and edit info down to 10 pages


The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

The Uranium sold was owned by Canada. US only had to approve the sale since it resides here.

But from what I have heard there were rather large contributions made to the Clinton Foundation around the time of this "deal" from people associated with Uranium 1 and Russian parties, and Bill Clinton landed a pretty hefty speaking fee of $500,000 that was paid for by connections to the Kremlin.

True or false? If true, why would large sums of money being "donated" NOT be influential to the Clintons? And is the fact that these donations were not reported, as required by law, in any way significant?

Perhaps the Clintons were smart enough to not leave a smoking gun laying around, but if it smells like a skunk........ The point of the matter is that money changed hands between Russian entities and the Clinton's when Hillary was in a position to influence decisions that the Russians had keen interest in the outcome. Is this or is this not at least circumstantial evidence that Hillary Clinton might be much more likely to be involved in collusion with the Russians than Donald Trump? Does anyone really believe that money doesn't buy influence, and BIG money has BIG strings attached?

What sort of evidence, even circumstantial, ties Donald Trump with any collusion, potential or actual, with Russia?

And to clear up a definition, "collusion" is taken to mean:

secret and/or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Just looking for the truth here.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

But from what I have heard there were rather large contributions made to the Clinton Foundation around the time of this "deal" from people associated with Uranium 1 and Russian parties, and Bill Clinton landed a pretty hefty speaking fee of $500,000 that was paid for by connections to the Kremlin.

True or false? If true, why would large sums of money being "donated" NOT be influential to the Clintons? And is the fact that these donations were not reported, as required by law, in any way significant?

Perhaps the Clintons were smart enough to not leave a smoking gun laying around, but if it smells like a skunk........ The point of the matter is that money changed hands between Russian entities and the Clinton's when Hillary was in a position to influence decisions that the Russians had keen interest in the outcome. Is this or is this not at least circumstantial evidence that Hillary Clinton might be much more likely to be involved in collusion with the Russians than Donald Trump? Does anyone really believe that money doesn't buy influence, and BIG money has BIG strings attached?

What sort of evidence, even circumstantial, ties Donald Trump with any collusion, potential or actual, with Russia?

And to clear up a definition, "collusion" is taken to mean:



Just looking for the truth here.

Those answers are out there Rich but to tell you the truth I get tired of trying to show people. I have a tendency to research when I hear about issues with government and not just ones sides version of it. I don't care if it is either Clinton, either Bush, Obama or Trump.

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company’s chairman

Now, each and every one of them have shady poop going on. With out a doubt. And each and every one of them will call the other out.

I find if your a republican you'll stand by them no matter the truth
I find if your a democrat you'll stand by them no matter the truth.

Remember when Bush did a tax break? I think it amounted to $600. Rep were saying he was such a caring individual while Dems were saying giving to people who have money, what a waste.

Remember when Obama did the same? Dems said what a caring individual while rep said, buying the poor mans vote.

I truly am sick with today's politics.

Originally Posted by JColt

Those answers are out there Rich but to tell you the truth I get tired of trying to show people. I have a tendency to research when I hear about issues with government and not just ones sides version of it. I don't care if it is either Clinton, either Bush, Obama or Trump.

Yes they are, and I have read up on a lot of it myself. So tell me, when someone "donates" very large sums of money, how long does it take for the strings attached to dissipate?

But in any event, this makes for an interesting read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html

Again, if we are talking about the potential for collusion with Russia, who seems more likely to be engaging in such a thing, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

Originally Posted by JColt

Now, each and every one of them have shady poop going on. With out a doubt. And each and every one of them will call the other out.

I find if your a republican you'll stand by them no matter the truth
I find if your a democrat you'll stand by them no matter the truth.

Remember when Bush did a tax break? I think it amounted to $600. Rep were saying he was such a caring individual while Dems were saying giving to people who have money, what a waste.

Remember when Obama did the same? Dems said what a caring individual while rep said, buying the poor mans vote.

I truly am sick with today's politics.

Yeah, I agree, and I believe we could do no worse by having our "representatives" selected at random from an open lottery of all legal residents. Personally, I cannot recall such elevated rancor directed towards a sitting president of the USA in the past as we are seeing now towards Trump. And yes, I have looked into the accusations being made about him, both before and after the election, and I am finding a lot of factual information lacking. Quite frankly, I haven't believed a word from "mainstream media" in quite a long time, but within the past couple of years they have fallen far short of any level of pretense of presenting facts and the truth that it is astonishing. To be blunt, I firmly believe that if you were to believe the exact opposite of what CNN and the like are telling you, you would be far, FAR closer to the truth.

As for Donald Trump, I believe he could actually be a great president and actually make positive changes to turning around the downward spiral of this nation. If he is allowed to. Our country has been eaten away from the insides and those maggots are still entrenched in important areas where they will be difficult to dislodge.

But anyway, for those of you who believe that Donald Trump is a bad president, then tell me, what would a GOOD president be doing for YOU instead?

Here is the biggest problem with Immigration

Penalties for Hiring Undocumented Immigrants


You may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for hiring undocumented immigrant workers. Civil penalties range from a minimum of $375 per unauthorized worker for a first offense up to a maximum of $1,600 per worker for a third or subsequent offense. If you are found to have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of hiring undocumented workers, then you can be fined up to $3,000 per employee and/or imprisoned for up to six months.

Make that minimum of $3000 and 6 months and no maybe's. Increase with further violations. This goes for the big guy and not just little guy.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Personally, I cannot recall such elevated rancor directed towards a sitting president of the USA in the past as we are seeing now towards Trump. And yes, I have looked into the accusations being made about him, both before and after the election, and I am finding a lot of factual information lacking.

Should have watched the Obama years. Plenty of rancor. Everyone wants to refute what they read about there candidate sadly. Like with any other some of it's 100% true, some has bits of fact and some completely false.

I do not care for Trump personally. Not because he's a republican but because I think he's a moron. Now I thought he was a moron before he ran. Almost every time I hear him talk I shudder. He's about as bi polar a person I have ever seen or heard.

It is what it is though. We have survived every president so far and I'm sure will survive this one. My life barely changes because of it. I'm paying for food stamps or blowing up some country, installing someones wall or fixing someones water where I don't live. Taking my money for someones project that isn't mine.

Originally Posted by JColt

Here is the biggest problem with Immigration



Make that minimum of $3000 and 6 months and no maybe's. Increase with further violations. This goes for the big guy and not just little guy.

So do you believe that illegal immigrants that are already in this country, and more coming in every day is or is not a problem?