If, and I write, "if" the IRS were to get involved and review the hiring and payment practices of those people in the protest business there would be far less people involved. Once the employment records are reviewed, I am sure that the I-9 form (qualification to work in the U.S. ) nor form 1099 nor any other taxation reports would be non-existant for the employees. Even employing a single person to do a job actually calls for the employee to make a declaration of wages which again, will be non-existant. Although it isn't pushed, getting paid to mow your next door neighbors lawn is still gainful employment which has to be declared according to most local and all federal laws. In short, we do not need the national guard, the 82nd airborne or even extra police to manage these riots but simply put the IRS on the job and all will be well again and a few people fined and/or in the court system for non payment of taxes. As far as the I-9 form, anyone employed has to have signed one in order to work in the U.S. or else the employer legally faces a $5000.00 fine for each person illegally employed. By illegally, I mean ANYONE who has not signed the form is technically working illegally. Non-payment of taxes caught Al Capone and many more like him. Perhaps Soros might be the next crime boss to make it to the gray bar hotel. Now, in actuality how long would the process take? One or two days at the most but we know it would never happen anyway. "IF" is the main word here and IF the dog hadn't stopped to relieve himself on the tree, he would have caught the rabbit.
But @Bobby Cole, the IRS doesn't have time to go after these types of people. They're too busy going after conservatives and tea party groups. Maybe that will change with the new administration. There seem to be a lot of people (particularly younger ones) who believe that this election will be overturned somehow.
I knew it would get ugly if Trump was elected but never thought it would get this ugly. I'm not as happy as I was when he won. I'm also seeing some Trump supporters not happy with some of his choices so far.
Well said Diane on your primary statement. The problem with the second is, the election can be overturned. The Clinton organization is already canvassing the electorates trying to make them "faithless" voters. In doing so, if the electorates change their votes when they are counted by congress then Clinton will have found her 270+ electoral college votes. Granted, 29 states do fine the electorates if they change their votes against the will of the people but the fine isn't substantial enough to bother anyone who might get a definite change of pocket by the Clintons. In light of that though, it looks like we have some definite voter fraud in a few states like California and Florida amounting to thousands of illegal voters so the popular vote will go to Trump which will leave Congress with a debacle unto itself. Oh yeah, then there's the thing about Clinton conceding to Trump. Uh...Al Gore did the same thing and then took it back prior to the inauguration. Well, have I worried a few people enough to look for their prozac yet? I just want to allow folks to have time to hold their breath until Trump raises his hand and says, "so help me God.".
True for me also, but what we don't care for are probably different for us as it will be for others. There is no perfect candidate.
The media is guessing at what he will do and then blaming him for his choises. They just will not give up and wait.
Although there was always the hope that he'd try to do everything he spoke about during the campaign, I don't think we've ever had a president who did. If he would allow the border patrol and ICE to do their jobs, I could live without a wall, although the construction of a wall has already passed congress and has been held up for lack of funding. I am confident that he won't be pushing for violations of the Second Amendment and, although he may nominate judges who are not what I would have hoped, I cannot help but believe that Hillary's choices would be even worse. They are making a fuss about Bannon being hired as a senior advisor, claiming that he is both racist and antisemitic, yet I have seen no substantiations for these claims. The one article they point to whose title refers to someone, I forget who, as a "Jew" was written by David Horowitz, who is Jewish. They ignore the fact that Breitbart.com was established in Israel by Andrew Breitbart, who was "sick of the anti-Israel bias of the mainstream media," and that Andrew Breitbart, not Stephen Bannon, was responsible for its content before his sudden death in 2012. Breitbart.com still has offices in Israel, as well as the United States and in London. They also ignore the fact that Breitbart.com publishes commentary from outside contributors, and they do not necessarily agree with the content of every article published. It's also amusing that, after months of insisting (without substantiation) that Donald Trump was a racist, they now attack him for appointing someone who they (also without substantiation) label as a racist. If they were right about Trump being a racist, then why would this be news? Why would it be shocking?
The judges are what scare me but it's not like I can't live with any that he would choose. All this is speculation anyway...we will see what really happens...January seems very far away.
Yes, they have. Bannon is the one that they are making a fuss over. The appointment of Preibus as Chief of Staff was what I found objectionable.
Also whatever he promised will take time...no shortcuts to most of it. Just reading about even though recreational pot passed in California...I'd still be afraid to have it in Fresno...seems very complicated and nobody seems to understand what you can and can't have. https://www.reddit.com/r/fresno/comments/5c4gcs/legal_weed/
Lol, that's the one I can understand. Trump needs him I think if he wants to work with his enemies. He is an ally of Ryan. Of course, isn't Ryan the one that wants to privatize social security? Or am I thinking of someone else @Ken Anderson ?