Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
JUST IN: President-elect #Trump announces @Sprint will bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S., and OneWeb will hire 3,000 people in the U.S.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/814233863614382080

"Trump says..." So what? And I say I'm going to the gym every day in 2017. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words so let me know when it actually happens, not beforehand.

And if it eventually does, where's the evidence that shows it wasn't already in process?

Where is the evidence for something that has not yet happened?

Typical progressive logic... they are cheering hard for the future Trump Administration to fail... but they are prepared to take credit just in case his team is successful.

Remember " Successful Business Owner" you did not develop and build your business. The federal/state governments did that for you.

You're missing the point. If it hasn't happened yet, why does Trump announce it and pat himself on the back? Why do his supporters promote it like anything happened yet?

And I'm not a progressive - far from it. I just know that Actions > Words. Let's do something before we take credit for it, eh?

By this logic Obama should've not accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, lol.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
JUST IN: President-elect #Trump announces @Sprint will bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S., and OneWeb will hire 3,000 people in the U.S.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/814233863614382080

"Trump says..." So what? And I say I'm going to the gym every day in 2017. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words so let me know when it actually happens, not beforehand.

And if it eventually does, where's the evidence that shows it wasn't already in process?

Where is the evidence for something that has not yet happened?

Typical progressive logic... they are cheering hard for the future Trump Administration to fail... but they are prepared to take credit just in case his team is successful.

Remember " Successful Business Owner" you did not develop and build your business. The federal/state governments did that for you.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
JUST IN: President-elect #Trump announces @Sprint will bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S., and OneWeb will hire 3,000 people in the U.S.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/814233863614382080

"Trump says..." So what? And I say I'm going to the gym every day in 2017. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words so let me know when it actually happens, not beforehand.

And if it eventually does, where's the evidence that shows it wasn't already in process?

oh, those 8,000 jobs are part of the 50,000 that Softbank had promised to create. Double count

JCMan8 wrote:
JUST IN: President-elect #Trump announces @Sprint will bring 5,000 jobs back to the U.S., and OneWeb will hire 3,000 people in the U.S.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/814233863614382080

Yvonne wrote:
Gay activists live in denial, here is a small sample of activists going after Christians. It is not about tolerance, it is about destroying someone who does not share your views.
https://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bil ... ir-issue-sex-not-violence
http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=64813
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/acushnet_church/
http://chalcedon.edu/research/article ... ivists-threaten-violence/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16 ... ign-against-gay-marriage/

Monroe wrote:
The donkey Democrats beat themselves to death with their terrible policies, President elect Trump just delivered the final blow.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

PremiumContent wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Are you guys planning to fall in line on the issue of net neutrality as well?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20 ... ules-as-soon-as-possible/

Not thrilled with the proposed changes, but this issue is so meaningless compared with what was at stake in this election (Germany just provided yet another reminder), that I just don't really care about it.

But again, if you want to move and join your fellow liberals, feel free.

This issue is much more meaningful than the trumped up fear of terrorism. Barely any Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks since 9/11. You are more likely to get hit by lightning.

You are 100% wrong, but luckily your side lost and the debate is over.

Yvonne wrote:
Let's blame Russia, WikiLeaks, Jill Stein, fake stories, alt-right, and everyone except the candidate who ran and lost. Let's add Obama to the list, we can say he did not campaign hard enough for Hillary.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

You are correct, and luckily the practical people have won the debate.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
I cant understand how some people can halt the development on a project like this that is actually in relative scale with the neighborhood as opposed to every other project in JSQ that is a 60 story tower next to a 2 story house. This would benefit the streetscape in my opinion, but its not my call I guess.

What's so hard to understand? The proposed building did not include ANY parking. That's unacceptable in Jersey City, where people need cars.

Yvonne wrote:
I am so glad I made your day, Who else could I be. Although I would shorten the name, it is too much to type.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Frank M, you are a typical liberal. When I give the facts, you make personal attacks.

I realize you made a simple mistake confusing me with rescuelife, so no harm done even though that?s quite a stretch. You should know that none of the abuse or name-calling you receive on this website comes from me.

As far as your opinion, it seems to be based exclusively on your feelings about a small number of cases where sexual orientation is a factor, instead of the overall principle. You?re making no concession to the reality that if you had your way, and people were indeed free to discriminate against others on the basis of religious belief, that you, me, and everybody else would very quickly find ourselves the victims of unreasonable discrimination from others whose deeply held beliefs are extremely different from our own.

Going out on a limb, I would suggest that most conservatively and liberally-minded Americans tend to have similar opinions about discrimination on the basis of religion.

Never before has Christianity has been under attack than now.

Monroe wrote:
Brexit, Trump, and now Italexit. Progressive populist people are speaking.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

MidwestTransplant wrote:
I believe that the preferred term is "Italeave".

I like Quitaly better. But, Italeave is pretty good, too.

greenville wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
If the driver's convictions were for nonviolent crimes, who cares?

Well if I'm taking a ride with a stranger who didn't go through an interview to get the job I would certainly want them to have a clean criminal record, or to get trained on rules and regulations of operating as a taxi, or a vehicle inspection to make sure the vehicle is not falling apart. But cheap asses like you would ride with Charles Manson himself if it meant you got a cheap ride. I wonder when Uber is going to get rid of the subsidies they are currently offering to drivers during rush hour, $2.40 for a fare with a subsidy is ridicoulous and without it not even ex convicts will drive for that.

greenville wrote:
WhoElseCouldIBe They have solved the problem of drivers like me complaining by getting "better" qualified candidates and lowering vehicle standards to allow hoopties. And yes this applies to NJ.

"Uber Says It Will Begin To Accept Drivers In Connecticut With Minor Criminal Records" http://www.courant.com/news/connectic ... -1118-20161118-story.html

greenville wrote:
Wow, you can afford to live in downtown but you can't afford to tip a driver?! Here is a story of a driver who work 60 hours and only netted $350 (driver does not get vacation time or matching ss wages on that either). Uber won't put a psa since it will be bad for business and the bottomline since they paying for slave labor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUXHMsqj2Go&t=288s

greenville wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
I haven't noticed this.

But, to your other complaint, Uber policy is to be cash free and not require tipping - that's the point - so if they want to be like Lyft and offer tipping options, it needs to be on the app. I often have no cash whatsoever on my person. Complaining about customers what it's the brand's policy and/or app that troubles you is misdirected.

So the fact that most of drivers like me were making less than minimum wage and subsidizing your taxi ride is misdirecting my anger? Uber no longer discourages people from tipping so that policy has changed, but the mentality hasn't. Many of the people I took have no problem tipping at a restaurant or tipping a regular cab but when it comes to Uber they don't do it.Only 10% of riders tip on the lyft platform anyway so that mentality has got to change. Uber has also reduce what they pay to driver while upping what they charge the passenger with upfront pricing. Please be a decent human being carry a couple of dollars and tip.

MFJC07302 wrote:
Well, I have won the fight against the homeless and the store being filthy. I reached out to corporate in Seattle, Washington as I have been writing on the JC List and they are coming to the store to do a "clean sweep" of the management and get the store back to it's original mission statement.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

When too many people believe whatever you say, you can say whatever you want.

Hell, he convinced tons of people that a billionaire who lives at the top of a skyscraper in NYC with his name on it is somehow "a man of the people".

And what exactly did Hillary represent? A ton of people were also conned by the HRC propaganda machine into thinking she was a shoe in. The silly propagandists themselves who started to believe their own lies.

She should be embarrassed that she did not destroy Trump.... Everyone knew she was lying, untrustworthy and owned by Goldman Sachs... there not one accomplishment in her whole political life that she earned herself.

Now the crap about Trump settling court cases???? Her husband settled his sexual harassment lawsuits as President. Apparently, that is what Presidents do??? The democrats and their corrupt nomination process are equally guilty for letting Trump into office.

People had no choice and that snobby nouveau riche elitist did nothing convince the working class people that she belonged in the WH.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
[quote]
JCMan8 wrote:


From the NY Senate website:


Alright, you've quoted a reliable source and was well aware that the children of illegals have a right to public education in the United States.

But I'd really love to know some statistics on the volume of welfare benefits received by illegal aliens. I can't imagine it being that substantial nor do I think there are very many leading a lifestyle like the one you described for Joe Illegal. Most illegals from what I've seen are large numbers cramped in small apartments and barely getting by after they send money back home. They are not exactly living a lavish or anything close to a middle class lifestyle. Illegal aliens are certainly a problem but I think it is greatly exaggerated by the press and politicians. There are a lot of jobs out there that would never get filled and businesses that couldn't survive without them (i.e. restaurants, car washes, cleaning, etc.).

The costs of illegal immigration (via job competition, taxpayer funded free education, free emergency healthcare, and free local, state, and sometimes federal benefits) far outweigh the benefits (a fraction of them take jobs that are on the books and pay taxes into programs that they presently cannot collect, such as social security).

If a business can't survive without paying below-minimum wage (because that's why you'd hire an illegal), it quite simply may not deserve to survive. After all, isn't that the argument "progressives" make in response to conservatives' objections to raising the minimum wage?

Also, I suspect it is fear mongering to assert that these businesses wouldn't survive. These jobs would get filled, only by Americans, and most likely at a higher wage. The owner would simply make less profit.

If you read the NY Senate explanation for why illegals receive state and local benefits even though they are not legally entitled to them, I'm not sure there are any sort of reliable statistics. All they need to present is fake ID, which is easily obtained, and it's not like the government is keeping track of the difference.

I suspect the only sort of statistics you will find will be partisan. Either from some liberal think tank who wants to produce some rigged study that supposedly shows illegals are actually a great benefit to the economy (which flies in the face of common sense), or from conservative sites like this one, which claims that illegals receive more welfare than American families.

Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ill ... -families/article/2590744

I'm not saying I totally disagree with you about the cost of illegals, but I don't think you can easily substantiate the statement that the costs of illegal immigration far outweigh its benefits. Furthermore, to simply state that businesses would make less profit without employing illegals and instead employing Americans is also a pretty simplistic statement. There are plenty of jobs out there that could easily be filled by Americans who choose to simply work the system and receive government benefits rather than work, and that is not the illegals' fault. There are plenty more Americans that are simply unemployable as well, i.e. mentally ill, disabled, etc. and also cost taxpayers a lot. Yes, illegals cause problems and cost tax dollars, but if all of them were deported immediately and the border with Mexico was heavily fortified, the lack of low-cost labor would cause plenty of problems too.

At least for now, Trump isn't saying he will immediately deport all illegals. Instead, he is targeting the worst 2-3 million with additional criminal records for deportation.

We also need harsher penalties on employers who hire illegals, which Trump also said he will do.

And yes, he wants to heavily fortify the border with Mexico.

All of these are great proposals that will benefit Americans and I believe he will accomplish them.

AlexC wrote:
This is the part I don't get about Trump - is he really that delusional that he believes that he is responsible for this? It has happened many times during the campaign, and that, I guess is exaggeration, but he's won the Presidency, why do this shit?

President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter on Thursday night to say Ford Motor Co. executive chairman William Ford Jr. had called to say the company would not move production of the Lincoln MKC from its Louisville Assembly Plant to Mexico.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky - no Mexico
9:01 PM - 17 Nov 2016
43,529 43,529 Retweets 136,876 136,876 likes
A second Trump tweet claimed credit for the decision.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump

I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great State of Kentucky for their confidence in me!

9:15 PM - 17 Nov 2016

Ford, however, said it neither planned to close the Louisville, Ky., plant nor reduce jobs there. The company said it had considered moving Lincoln production to Mexico to increase production of the Ford Escape in Louisville.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-wa ... ln-production-in-kentucky

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Dolomiti, you are out of your mind.

I'm out of my mind, because I actually know facts about changes in NYC's and national crime rates? How fascinating.


Quote:

I remember NYC before Giuliani became mayor. It was a violent shithole. Degeneracy everywhere.

Uh, no. Not even close.

Again, you are hardly the only person on Earth who lived in the NYC area at the time. There were numerous rough areas that have improved significantly, like Times Square and the Lower East Side. There were also plenty of perfectly safe and upscale neighborhoods. As is usually the case, most of the violent crime was concentrated in specific areas.

And of course, merely remembering NYC as being in bad shape does not refute a single thing I've said.


Quote:

He came in and really cleaned the city up.

Yet again, this is incorrect. His term as mayor only partially correlated with drops in crime; and yet again, crime had dropped 20% from its peak by the time he took office.

Sorry not sorry, but given a choice between uninformed vitriol and solid facts, I'll take facts. Every time.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Scumbag wants top security clearance for his children. wtf

So someone says he wants to make America great and you call him a scumbag.

Some of us judge him by what he has done, like leaving a trail of stiffed contractors, bankruptcies, and molested women, rather than what he says he will do.

Regarding the stiffed contractors and bankruptcies, I've been to a few friends' BBQs in central and southern Jersey, and I met more than one family who went without a Christmas after the Taj Mahal filed bankruptcy, because their family run businesses had been sub-contractors or vendors for that property. Most got around 33 cents on the dollar of what they were owed if they were lucky. Many long-time family owned small contractor businesses were simply ruined after Trump used the bankruptcy process to weasel out of paying what he rightfully owed. Despite all those families being ruined and going to work for other contractors or any menial job they could get, do you think Trump ever stopped riding around in his limousines, yachts and helicopters after the Taj's three separate bankruptcies? I doubt it. His lifestyle was not affected.

It's not just this that matters though - Trump has zero elected experience. He is as qualified to run this country as Jesse Jackson was when he ran in 1984. If you're going to run for the most powerful elected office in the world, you should have *some* lower office experience first - you don't need to be a career politician like Bernie Sanders, but at least one lower level elected office would be nice.

Trump will demonstrate to you how instincts and judgment are far more important than experience in a President.

More importantly, all of Hillary's experience is bad. She's like a CEO who ran her former company into the ground. Think of the election as picking the CEO of a new company. While it's true to say that Hillary was the only candidate with CEO experience, she sucked, so it's not like her experience is much of a positive factor when you put it into proper context.

He's surrounded by the best people and that suffices.

Would you hire a CEO who bankrupted his companies many times and stiffed his suppliers? I guess if he told you what you wanted to hear, you would.

If that same CEO had a long track record of success? Sure.

Again, context is everything. Trump has created over 500 businesses and only a minute fraction of them failed. In the aggregate, the successes of his businesses employed tens of thousands of people, and increased his wealth from an initial loan of a couple million dollars to many billions of dollars.

Compare that to Hillary's legacy of failure. Failed the Bar Exam. Largely failed as First Lady (she wanted healthcare reform but got nowhere). Was a completely ineffective senator. And was a total disaster as Secretary of State.

JCMan8 wrote:
Dolomiti, you are out of your mind. I remember NYC before Giuliani became mayor. It was a violent shithole. Degeneracy everywhere.

He came in and really cleaned the city up. So you can point to "the evidence," inevitably authored by liberals seeking to advance their agenda, but I'll stick with what actually happened.