So I hear that Donald Trump won't release his tax returns?

@marriedplus3 Wait, did you just say you think he probably didn't pay any taxes at all and you still wanna vote for him? Dude, why?

Why would him not paying taxes influence my vote. All that would show is he was smart enough to go around paying taxes similar to amazon @BlueMetalChick

@marriedplus3 Because that would mean he's actively doing harm to you and the rest of working class citizens by not paying his taxes and forcing you to pay more. You really don't see that as a problem? What you're saying is "Why would someone intentionally breaking the law and pushing monetary burden on other people influence my vote?"

I mean, I've been smart enough to racketeer people out of money for almost six years now. Does that mean you should vote for me to be president because I was clever enough to persuade people to invest money into nonexistent businesses?

I vote for him because he’s good for the economy. Because he’s trying to fix illegal immigration because he’s creating jobs. Because regardless of what’s in his taxes I believe in what he’s doing for this country @BlueMetalChick

@marriedplus3 Good for the economy? 56% of American workers with full time jobs still make $30,000 yearly or less. 76% of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Wages have decreased, high paying jobs have been replaced with low paying jobs, and the public sector is ailing because public funding is being reallocated to buying weapons for Muslim terrorists. That's good for the economy?

Creating jobs? He outsourced over 93,000 American jobs to foreign countries just in his first year as president, and 105,000 jobs in his second year. That's creating jobs? Shipping them overseas?

@BlueMetalChick And you think government is going to fix the problems you see in the economy? Where I live the government decided to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. The net result was increased unemployment. The guys and girls who were making $13.00 an hour are now making $0.00 per hour. The cure is worse than the problem.

@hippyjoe1955 Australia has an $18.00 minimum wage and their employment increased. And even the $13.00 you referenced is better than the $7 we have here, not to mention that workers who receive tips don't even need to be paid $7. It's legal to pay them $2 hourly wages if they get tips.

@BlueMetalChick Depends on how rapidly the minimum increases. That being said the minimum is just the minimum and as such is not a living wage or a middle income. It is a minimum Inflation takes care of it as it will here. The purchasing power will be reduced back to the level when it as $10.00 an hour. The biggest problem the poor face is over taxation. That is what is really eating their lunch and increasing the minimum wage only increases their tax burden.

@hippyjoe1955 Because the definition of a "living wage" is simply how much money a person working full time needs to earn in order to meet their basic necessities. And that amount of money varies depending on which part of the country you're in. The United States is a very large nation; people living Little Rock, Arkansas have a lower cost of living than people living in Chicago, Illinois. And as such, "living wage" isn't a policy so much as a goal to evaluate the cost of living in each part of the country and adjust wage laws accordingly.

Exactly and regardless of what Democrats say. There far left socialists ideas will hurt the low income more then republicans ideas. Because tax rate with Democrats will be higher for everyone @hippyjoe1955

@marriedplus3 Yeah sorry but pretty much zero democrats are "far left socialists." The closest you come are the "socialistic democrat" crowd, and there aren't many of them. And furthermore, most of their platforms aren't "far leftist." If they were, then every industrialized nation on Earth except America would be "far left."

Not to mention all of those countries have stronger working classes, higher wages, longer life expectancy, lower crime rates, and better education than the USA. But I know you don't like any of those things.

@BlueMetalChick Strange how you never allow a definition of socialism nor do you ever offer one.

@hippyjoe1955 I've given you the same definition of socialism as least six times now, and every time you either ignore it and start calling me names, or you stop replying.

@BlueMetalChick so tell me again. Every time it differs from the last time. I think you have no idea what it is and simply ascribe to it all your political wishes.

@hippyjoe1955 No, every time it doesn't differ from last time. I've given you the same definition every single time. And you either ignore it and call me names, or stop replying. If you want me to do this again, you're gonna have to stop telling deliberate lies by saying I change my definition when you know goddamned fucking well that isn't true.

I did this with you in PM over two years ago. Wanna take a look at the definition I gave you then, and show you that it matches the definition I've given you every time since?

@BlueMetalChick So tell me again because the last time you said something very different than the time before. Maybe you changed your mind.

@marriedplus3 What a tool.

@hippyjoe1955 I can't "change my mind" about the definition of a word. Words have set meanings; you don't get to change your mind about what they mean. A word means what it means regardless of what you think it means. That's the cool thing about language, is that it doesn't give a fuck what you want it to mean.

Like I've told you every time we've had this conversation, a true socialistic economy is post-capitalist, one in which the workers completely own the means of production and there is no private ownership of businesses. Which is why I said in an earlier comment that there are no truly socialist First World nations at the moment.

And furthermore, what I said about socialistic democrats is also true. All First World nations are socialistic to an extent; the United States is the least of them and that is why there aren't many politicians who support socialistic democratic policy platforms in the US government.

@BlueMetalChick Funny how you deny all the others who define socialism differently than you do. The Nazis said they were socialists. It was part of their name. Were they socialist? We just tossed out a government that called itself socialist. Was it socialist? It wasn't like the Nazis but it did kill the economy. What is your definition of socialism?

@hippyjoe1955 North Korea says it's a democratic republic. I guess it must be a democratic republic, right? It's in the name. So therefore you must either hate democracy and republicanism, or you love North Korea.

I just typed out the definition of socialism and you're asking for it AGAIN? The timestamp on my comment says it was posted two minutes ago. You can't even remember what I said to you two minutes ago?

@BlueMetalChick Your point about NK is? Since you can't define socialism beyond your wish list your definition is nonsense. The nazis were socialists and you are so historically illiterate you don't even know how or why they were right in saying they were socialist.

@hippyjoe1955 "Nazi Germany called itself socialist so therefore it was socialist because it was in the name." -You
So therefore because North Korea calls itself a democratic republic, it must be a democratic republic because it's in the name.

You said it, not me.

[quote] Since you can't define socialism beyond your wish list your definition is nonsense.[/quote]
I JUST DEFINED socialism for you. I just fucking did that. It's three comments up. Did you read it?

[quote] The nazis were socialists and you are so historically illiterate you don't even know how or why they were right in saying they were socialist.[/quote]
So the Nazis, despite having adopted a grand total of zero socialist policies, were still somehow magically socialist?

Huh, that's odd, last time you told me the Nazis were liberals. Liberals and socialists hate each other. So which is it?

Again, you said it, not me.

@BlueMetalChick Actually the nazis kept all the socialist ideals including speeding up Darwin's evolution.

@hippyjoe1955 Did you read the definition of socialism that I gave you, at your request? A socialist economy is post-capitalist and has no private ownership of business. So you're telling me Nazi Germany had no private business ownership and the entire means of production was owned by the workers? You actually believe that?

Since when was Darwinism at all relevant to socialism? You just made that up right now. Socialism does not involve anything related to Charles Darwin or his theories. Like I told you earlier, the definitions of words don't change based on your opinions and what you want those words to mean.