Im not sure that this is the place to post this but here goes.
Back in 2014 i was living outside of atlanta and my exwife enjoyed casinos. The nearest one to us was in montgomery alabama and it was about a 2.5 hour drive. We had gps and always followed it, about 3/4s of the drive was through thick woods on what were mostly back roads (single lane roads with nothing but trees all around).
The second time we took this trip we were unsure if we had missed a turn and the gps wasnt connecting, i think it was because we were in the middle of litterally no where. So we found this old looking gas station at a fork in the road that had no signs indicating routes. it wasnt ancient but the kind that had a garage attatched to it and the shop part was not much more than a counter and a soda cooler. I went in to ask for directions and the person behind the counter (a rather "colorful local character who looked like he lived in a tent and did nothing but smoke meth) told me i needed to keep going straight for 5 miles and we would see a sign at another fork and to take that left and it would lead us into mongomery in 45 or so minutes.
So we leave and head in that direction and as we get to the fork the guy mentioned but it leads to a dirt road and the sign the guy was talking about was a wood sign with an arrow pointing left that just says "montgomery". I got a bad feeling about it andnstayed on the paved road and eventually got gps and followed that the rest of the way.
We had gone back a number of times in the next few months and the gps always told us to turn left at that fork but the gas station just wasnt there any more. There wasnt even a cleared lot at that fork. I at first thought I just wasnt sure where I was but one time out of curiosity i didnt take the normal left the gps told me to take and 5 miles down the road there was that dirt road I remembered but the sign was gone (the post wast still there but the wood sign was missing). The gps proceeded to take me the way I remembered from that night though.
Has any one else ever encountered a place just vanishing like this? I feel not taking that road the guy at the station told me about was one of the best descisions i ever made.

https://6abc.com/business/philly-pausing-some-reopenings-announces-travel-advisory/6285059/

Philadelphia pausing full green phase reopening, announces travel advisory

The opening of indoor dining and gyms is delayed until at least August 1.
PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- Due to the rising number of positive cases of the coronavirus, Philadelphia is pausing some of its reopening plans and will only move to a modified green phase on Friday. The city has also issued a travel advisory for 15 states across the country.
The city health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farely opened his press briefing Tuesday by saying the news was not good as cases of COVID-19 continue to rise nationally and regionally.
There were 142 new positive cases reported Tuesday, bringing the city total to 26,133. There were five additional fatalities in Philadelphia, bringing the total to 1,584.
Farley said over the past couple of weeks, positive cases have been likely to be younger people. Thirty-four percent of the cases were under age 30 in the past two weeks, as opposed to 20 percent during the entire pandemic.
Dr. Farley announces Philadelphia is pausing its reopening plans.
He said this is linked to social events and travel, especially trips to the Jersey Shore.
The city's daily case counts are no longer going down, Farley said, and Philadelphia will not meet its targets to move fully to green on Friday.
Therefore, the city is pausing the reopening of indoor dining, as well as gyms and fitness centers, to at least August 1.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania region, including collar counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, entered the green phase of Governor Tom Wolf's reopening plan last Friday, June 26. Philadelphia allowed some businesses like barbers and salons to reopen.
The city is also asking people in Philadelphia to not travel to the following states where they are seeing rising COVID-19 numbers: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
People returning to Philadelphia from any of these states should self-quarantine for 14 days, Farley said.
On Friday, Philadelphia will be allowing the reopening of some businesses in a modified and restricted green phase.
These businesses and activities include museums and libraries, indoor shopping malls, and small indoor and outdoor gatherings.
Casinos will also be allowed to open during this restricted green phase, but only with very strict requirements - masks are required, six feet of distance between patrons, and absolutely no food, drink, or smoking is allowed indoors.
All businesses and activities must follow the Safe Mode guidance on the City's Reopening with Care website.
Farley added if people can work remotely, they should continue to do so.
Farley noted that he expects Philadelphia will be dealing with this virus for a long time, and if there is a rise in cases, the city may be forced to close some previously opened businesses.

Christians got the Bible’s autographed by the man guilty of all the deadly sins while a casino was paying for the funeral costs of the victims.
As the Bible says, you shall know them by their fruits.
EDIT: The Poarch Band of Creek Indians owns and operate the following casinos: Wind Creek Casino & Hotel, Atmore; Wind Creek Casino & Hotel, Wetumpka; and, Wind Creek Casino & Hotel, Montgomery. Tip of the hat to the Native tribes who used their Casino wealth to act more Christian than the Christians in a time of need.

Let me just say I am loving the generations and fame additions. Next up though I feel we should have an update that just focuses on the features already in the game and making them better. Some suggestions for such... bear with me, this is a fairly long list:
—
1. 👨🏻‍🦱 - I’d love for the ability to select a custom character’s race, and their starting stats (looks, smarts, etc) as well. Also, I’d love to select which country they appear in, cause it’s weird to have a friend named “Bob” pop up in China.
2. 🌎 - We should have the ability to adopt children from nations other than the one you’re living in, or have someone who immigrated from a foreign country periodically pop up as a date option.
3. 🏠 - The ability to rent out houses, as well as to rent rather than buy houses of your own — also, I’d love for the following house type to be added: greenhouse (an environmentally friendly house with lots of glass and solar panels).
4. 🛥 - More assets beyond houses and cars, like the ability to buy a phone, yacht, or private plane. Also the ability to use vehicle assets, like click on a car and “take it for a spin,” or go on vacation with a private plane.
5. 🎰 - New casino mini games, such as roulette and a slot machine.
6. 🎥 - More movie genre options, like horror 👻, fantasy 🏰, or adult 😏. Also, the option to buy concessions, like have “go see movie with concessions” and “w/o” options, picking the latter option adds 4% to happiness, but drains bank account and possibly health.
7. 🏜 - Idea for vacations: alongside being able to travel to cities, have also the option to travel to landmarks, like Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, Mount Everest, Great Wall of China, and more.
8. ⛓ - The ability to contact family members while in prison by phone, perhaps up to a max of four or five per year, just so your relationship bars with them don’t just dwindle till your release. Also be able to have visits if you’ve had “good behavior.”
9. 🐠 - I’m quite satisfied with pet options especially with the last update, though there are two I’d still love added: platypuses and blue tang fish (yes I want my own Perry and Dory).
10. ☠️ - I’d love if in the cemetery, gravestones from the same family lineage were grouped together as one slot in the list, like as the “Johnson Legacy” for example.
11. ✈️ - If you immigrate to a different country, you should have the option to fly back for any funerals of family members. Also, if you go on vacation to the city you emigrated from, the relationship bars of any family members still there should go up.
12. 🏙 - The ability to move to a different city within the same country, and also have a chance for your parents to move you around during your childhood (many kids don’t stay in one place, after all😉).
13. 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 - More family interactions. “Play a Game♟” for example which would have the chance to raise the relationship bar, or lower it if the game gets heated. Also, for your lover exclusively, the option to “send a suggestive pic📱” with the chance they’ll either respond well or poorly to it.
14. ⛪️ - Parents’ religiousness should have a bigger impact on childhood. The possibility a super religious parent would disapprove of your lover for example, or that they may try to set you up with one. They could also argue with you if you have a teen pregnancy.
15. 👥 - The chance of having more than one older sibling upon starting a new life. The chance of having quads when having children (slim, but a chance), and the very slim chance to be born as part of a set of triplets or quads.
16. 👩🏻‍🦰 - More character icon looks. The chance of having straight 👨 or curly 👨‍🦱 hair. The chance of being born as a redhead 👨‍🦰, which would vary by country. Also, in Muslim countries, women characters should use the hijab 🧕 emoji.
17. 🧘‍♂️ - More mind + body options.
• To raise smarts, options like “complete a puzzle 🧩” or “read a nonfiction book 📒”
• To raise happiness and health, options like “go golfing 🏌️” or “read a novel 📚”
• To raise looks, options like “go for a jog 🏃‍♂️” or “take a shower 🧖‍♂️”
18. 🤰 - If abortion is illegal in the country you’re in, you should still be able to try and get one, with two options: “Safe abortion,” which would have chance of arrest, or “unsafe abortion,” which wouldn’t have chance of arrest, but chance of injury or death. Also, men shouldn’t be able to force women to have abortions.
19. 👨‍👦 - If you continue on as your child after you die, and your child is retired, it should show their occupation as retired, not unemployed, and their prior occupation should appear on their gravestone when they die.
20. 💴 - More diversity with currency symbols. Countries like Japan and China, which use the Yen and Yuan respectively, should use the “¥” symbol.
21. 🏥 - Healthcare should be free at point of service in countries with universal healthcare systems, like the U.K., Canada, or Sweden. Also, there should be a chance that a child of yours gets sick in their childhood, especially if you don’t vaccinate, and you have to take them to a doctor.
22. 🎫 - Sometimes you get pop ups involving concerts, but there should also be an option in activities to go to one. Similar to vacations, it would have a drop down menu of artists to choose from, as well as option to choose class of seats, and how many people to take with you.
23. 🐶 - A new interaction with pets should be the ability to “train them,” which would make their smarts go up every so often.
24. 🌙 - A dark mode for those of us who play at night. Seen this idea pop up elsewhere, so figured I’d reiterate it.
25. 📜 - More options with the will, like the ability to leave it to grandkids and the ability to select who to pass on houses, cars or pets to plus have them passed on separate from your bank balance, like have one kid get the house and another get the bank money.
26. 😇 - Show the Karma bar in stats, and add options like “give to charity” into the game as a means to raise it. Also, and this is an entirely new idea, I think it’d be cool if your level of karma at death affects your stats in your next life. :)
27. 🇺🇳 - New countries! Ideas for such: Iceland, Poland, Switzerland, Lithuania, Thailand, Mongolia, Pakistan, Nepal, Madagascar, Morocco, D.R. of the Congo, and Fiji. (My personal top three desires are Thailand, Mongolia, and D.R. of the Congo).
28. 🇺🇸 - I’ve seen a lot of “Sweet Home Alabama” types on the BitLife page, so I propose a new city for the United States: Montgomery, Alabama. Also, I’d love for Honolulu, Anchorage, New Orleans, and Salt Lake City to be added.
29. 🏀 - More stuff with sports.
• Sometimes you see things like “you took X to a football game” for example, so that should be an option in activities. You’d have different sports to choose, like genres of movies, such as football, baseball, soccer, or cricket. Also, the option to take family members with you.
• Secondly, now that we have fame, we should definitely have a professional sports career added into jobs, as well as a sports degree added to university (that would be so fitting with the new option to buy kids into university).
30. ⚫️ - More job options! I’ve already made a list of this (here: Jobs Ideas but to highlight a few:
• 🍭 - Candy Store Worker
• ♥️ - Cardiologist
• 🎞 - Film Maker
• ⛏/⚱️ - Miner (Coal/Gold)
• Also, the pro sports career which I listed earlier.
31. 👺 - More crime options!
• Kidnapping (👶) as one. It would make a child appear in your relationships section (similar to cars in assets with stealing cars), they’d start out at 0 with their relationship bar, and you’d have the option to choose how to interact with them. Obviously, each year (until they turn 18) you’d have chance of being arrested, or being arrested right off the bat.
• Hire a Hitman (🔫) as an alternative to murdering someone yourself. You’d have several choices for hire, and the more money you pay, the better the odds of success and (more importantly) not getting caught.
• Embezzlement (👔) - steal something from your place of work and then sell it to make money. Your place of work would determine what’s up for grabs, like if you’re a pharmacist for example, you could sell drugs.
• Robbery Options - have option to select what type of building to rob alongside a house. Add in the option to rob a bank or store.
32. 🎀 - New ribbons!!
• Gold Digger (⚱️) - marry only wealthy partners, make at least $10M from divorce settlements or their inheritances.
• Debtor (🤐) - take out loans whenever given the option, such as for university, when buying a house and car, etc. Die with a negative net worth of at least -$1M.
• Foolhardy (🍀) - win a lottery prize of at least $1M before age 40, squander it all on extravagant purchases, die before age 80 with a negative net worth and depression.
• R Rated (👠) - become a pornographer, get famous, only ever do nude related things in “fame” section of activities, go clubbing a lot, always hook up whenever given the chance, get happy ending for massages whenever given chance too. In general, be a dirty person.
• Darwinist (🦁) - have at least ten instances of a pet eating another pet during your lifetime, and always reward the pet whenever they do it.
• Father and Son (👨‍👦) - live a life as a male and continue as your son after you die. Live that son’s life in a very similar manner. Get the same occupation, the same type of house, get married if your father was married, etc.
—
That is all, but yes, in general an update that focuses on enhancing and expanding existing features as opposed to one that adds a whole new concept I think should be next in line. There’s just so much that could be done :) comment your thoughts and ideas below👇

One of the chief complaints I see when I accidentally stumble into /The_Donald is that all the criticism of Donald Trump boils down to one simple sentiment: Donald Trump is literally Hitler. Now the cynical among us might point out that anyone who says anything negative, or neutral, about God Emperor Trump is unceremoniously /BannedFromTheDonald, thus inhibiting any kind of genuine intellectual discussion regarding any sort of shortcomings that their candidate may suffer from, but that would be victim blaming, and I wouldn't want to trigger any of them. No, despite all evidence to the contrary, /The_Donald is neither a safe space nor a hug box, /The_Donald is simply an internet forum where people who praise Donald Trump can praise Donald Trump, and praise others who praise Donald Trump, and ban individuals who don't praise Donald Trump. The proof is quite clear: Suggest that /The_Donald is a safe space or a hug box and you'll be banned, which is not something that would ever happen in a safe space or a hug box. Now that that's put to bed, we can move forward. I take the contributors of /The_Donald at their word that they would like to see genuine criticism of their candidate, criticism made without resorting to the lowest common denominator argument that "Donald Trump is literally Hitler." It is in this spirit of fairness that I present 10 Reasons to Vote Against Donald Trump. (None of which is that he's literally Hitler.)
Before I begin, though, a word on how to use this post: In an effort to further appease the requests of our friends over at /The_Donald you should know how to copy sections pertinent to your discussion. First you'll need the excellent "Reddit Enhancement Suite". After you've installed RES and restarted your browser, you'll find a new link to "Source" at the bottom of this post. If you click the "Source" link you'll be provided with an unformatted copy of everything here. You can copy any section of the unformatted text and paste it into a Reddit comment box, which will return it to the formatting you see below. I didn't explain that well, so hopefully someone in the comments can do a better job.

#10: Donald Trump supports NSA surveillance on the American People.

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," more commonly known as the "USA PATRIOT ACT." Parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1st, 2015, and were reborn on June 2nd, 2015, with the passage of a new policy, the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act," more commonly known as the "USA Freedom Act."
Much can be said about the Patriot Act, certainly far more than I have room to type in this post, but one of the more disturbing allowances made is the ability of the NSA to monitor your cell phone for information such as who you called, when you called them, who has called you, when they called you, and how long you spoke on the phone, all without a Federal warrant. At best this was considered an invasion on the privacy of law abiding American citizens, at worst this bulk data collection was a clear violation of our 4th Amendment protections against "Illegal [warrant-less] search and seizure." One part of the Patriot Act that did not survive the translation into the USA Freedom Act was the legality of NSA bulk data collection without a warrant, under current law the National Security Agency must acquire a Federal warrant if they want to collect your phone records. Certainly this doesn't solve the problem of mass surveillance, but requiring warrants for phone records is a step in the right direction.
On May 22nd, 2015, Donald Trump explained that:

“I support legislation which allows the NSA to hold the bulk meta-data. For oversight, I propose that a court, which is available any time on any day, is created to issue individual rulings on when this meta-data can be accessed.” [Google Cache Source]

Donald Trump suggests that we repeal the one step toward privacy rights that we have made since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, and that the NSA should have the ability to collect, maintain, and access the phone records of law abiding American citizens at "any time on any day."
On December 7th, 2015, Donald Trump further clarified:

“Well, I tend to err on the side of security, I must tell you, and I’ve been there for longer than you would think. But, you know, when you have people that are beheading if you’re a Christian and frankly for lots of other reasons, when you have the world looking at us and would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security, and so that’s the way it is, that’s the way I’ve been, and some people like that, frankly, and some people don’t like that. And I’m not just saying that since Paris, I’m saying for quite some time. I assume when I pick up my telephone people are listening to my conversations anyway, if you want to know the truth. It’s pretty sad commentary, but I err on the side of security,” [Source]

Seeming to imply that the American people should expect, and accept, that when "they pick up their telephone people are listening to their conversations anyway."
Donald Trump went on to add that:

“I think that [restoring the USA Patriot Act] would be fine. As far as I’m concerned, that would be fine,” [Source]

As President, Donald Trump would support the re-authorization of the USA Patriot Act, the re-authorization of NSA bulk data collection, and the ability of the American government to spy on law abiding American citizens, regardless of the protections afforded us by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. As he stated himself, Donald Trump "tends to err on the side of security" rather than freedom.
So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: NSA surveillance could be used to target not just terrorists, but law abiding American citizens who are perceived to be agitators or political dissidents. In theory the NSA could be utilized to stymie, if not stop entirely, any individual or group who the President feels is a "threat to national security." This is not a problem limited to Donald Trump, but extends to any President who may feel the need to use, or abuse, the USA Patriot Act.

#9: He's opposed to Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a policy which requires internet service providers, or ISPs, to treat all information on the internet equally. Under Net Neutrality if you pay for 50mbps internet, you get 50mbps internet for every site your visit, regardless of content. YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, and even Reddit, are all subject to the same speed limit: Whatever you're paying for. In the absence of Net Neutrality, ISPs could constrict speeds on certain sites, and charge extra fees to bring those sites up to speed. So say you're a Xfinity subscriber and want to access YouTube, under the Net Neutrality policy a YouTube video would stream in at the full 50mbps that you're paying for, were the policy of Net Neutrality overturned, Comcast could slow down effective speed to YouTube to 50kbps, and require that you pay an extra $4.99 per month to access YouTube at full speed.
Content creators and content hosts generally support Net Neutrality, as it puts all sites and hosts on a relatively even playing field. Industry giants like Netflix don't have to worry about Xfinity artificially hobbling their site, or increasing the actual subscription fee for their users, and smaller startups don't have to worry about their service being killed in the cradle by ISPs who fear the competition. Net Neutrality is a win-win scenario for content creators, content hosts, and consumers alike. The only opponents of Net Neutrality are those who stand to profit from the ability to throttle, and in some cases functionally censor, competitive content. Among the biggest opponents of Net Neutrality are internet giants such as Comcast Xfinity, COX, Time Warner, and Donald Trump.
On November 12th, 2014, Donald Trump tweeted the following:

"Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media." [Source]

This is interesting for a couple reasons.
First, nothing about Net Neutrality would allow the United States government in general, nor President Obama in specific, to censor the internet. In fact, Net Neutrality stands as a bulwark against ISPs functionally censoring content by means of severely restricting bandwidth. Imagine there was a website called https://www.ComcastSucks.com, in the absence of Net Neutrality Comcast could theoretically limit the bandwidth available to users trying to access this site to .5bps, functionally preventing any of their users from accessing https://www.ComcastSucks.com. Under the policy of Net Neutrality this sort of practical censorship would be illegal.
Secondly, the Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented in an effort to ensure that opposing viewpoints were presented during news broadcasts. To give an example: If a news program were hosting an individual claiming that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to undermine American manufacturing, the program would be required to also present the opposing view point that climate change is a real phenomenon with a genuine scientific basis. Wikipedia offers a brief description of the policy:

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine." [Source]

It may be confusing how one could arrive at the conclusion that Net Neutrality, a policy which acts as a strong defense against censorship, could be used to censor conservative media; or in what way Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine is related. Your confusion is justified, but also inconsequential: In this case the "why" is less important than the "what." What matters is that, for whatever reason, Donald Trump is opposed to the policy of Net Neutrality. If he is elected President he could overturn that policy, paving the way for increased consumer fees, decreased competition, and corporate censorship.
So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: Internet Service Providers would be legally allowed to gouge their customers based upon the internet content that they browse, functionally censor competing or critical websites, and offer preferential treatment to sites that they support or agree with.

#8: Donald Trump wants to make it easier to sue media outlets for libel.

In an effort to stem the tides of frivolous libel suits, the United States Supreme Court decided on March 29th, 1960 in "New York Times Company vs Sullivan" that a plaintiff has to show "actual malice" before press reports can be considered to be defamation and libel. Simply put, actual malice can be defined as "knowledge that the information [in the press report] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In short, in order to sue for libel or defamation, a plaintiff must show that a press organization knowingly or willfully published false information, an intentionally high burden of proof to bear. This burden of proof was implemented to prevent individuals from suing for misprints, unintentional errors, or other frivolous reasons. Consider the case for which this verdict was written:

On March 29, 1960, The New York Times carried a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices", which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment. The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Discrepancies were generally minor. Referring to the Alabama State Police, the advertisement stated: "They have arrested [King] seven times..." However, at that point he had been arrested four times. Although African-American students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not My Country, 'Tis of Thee. Although the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, the inaccurate criticism of actions by the police was considered defamatory to Sullivan as well, due to his duty to supervise the police department. [Source]

Although Commissioner Sullivan was not named in the advertisement, and the mistakes outlined above were minor, Sullivan was within his rights to sue the New York Times for libel, and won $500,000 in damages from an Alabama court. Feeling that this decision was unfair, The New York Times Company appealed, and the case ended up before the Supreme Court of the United States, which found in their favor and overturned the verdict. In their decision the Court stated that:

"The First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)." [Source] [Emphasis mine, ed.]

That's the necessary background. So what are Donald Trump's opinions on the matter? On February 26th, 2016 Donald Trump had this to say:

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money, so when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.” [Source]

Now, it should be noted that Donald Trump already has the right to sue any news organization that writes "purposely ... false articles." So long as Mr. Trump can prove that the publication knowingly or willfully published false information he can sue, he doesn't need to change the libel laws in order to do that. Unfortunately Mr. Trump hasn't explained exactly what he plans to do to make suing news publications easier. The Washington Post attempted to pin down the specifics during a recent interview, but Donald Trump was unable to provide any actual policy proposals. Listen Here: The Post asked Donald Trump about the First Amendment. Repeatedly.
So what could Donald Trump do to open up libel laws? For one thing, as President, he could appoint Supreme Court Justices that would be willing to overturn New York Times Co. vs Sullivan, thus ending the requirement that the plaintiff proves actual malice. This could open a litigious Pandora's Box of sorts, allowing individuals to sue news organizations for the most benign of mistakes, even if the plaintiffs themselves aren't specifically mentioned.
Another question worth pondering is "Why would Donald Trump want to make it easier to sue news publications, especially considering how much free advertising they've provided him since the beginning of his campaign?" I can't pretend to know what is in a person's heart, but if his actions are any indication, his feelings on libel suits might have something to do with how many of them he's filed, and threatened to file, himself:

• In the 1980s, when Trump he sued another businessman who had the same last name as him. Julius and Edmond Trump were trying to buy a chain of drug stores, and their business was called "The Trump Group." When Donald Trump found out he went on the offensive: Donald Trump’s lawyer, Roy Cohn, demanded that the Trump Group change its name by the following day or they would face consequences. A little while later, Donald Trump sued Julius and Edmond Trump in New York state court, alleging they were nothing but a pair of late-arriving immigrants trying to piggyback on his good name. “Plaintiffs have used the Trump family name for 40 to 50 years in the New York area. More recently, the Trump Organization has come to stand for respectability and success across the United States,” the complaint read. “The defendants are South Africans whose recent entrance in the New York area utilizing the name 'the Trump Group' can only be viewed as a poorly veiled attempt at trading on the goodwill, reputation and financial credibility of the plaintiff.” [Source]
  
• In 1984, Trump sued the Chicago Tribune for $500 million after the publication’s architecture critic, Paul Gapp, wrote an item suggesting Chicago’s Sears Tower, then the world’s tallest building, would remain as such, despite Trump’s plan to build a taller structure in downtown Manhattan. Trump claimed the story “virtually torpedoed” his dreams, according to the Associated Press, by depicting his would-be tower as “an atrocious, ugly monstrosity” even though, Trump said, he hadn’t even yet hired an architect or drawn a plan. [Quote source]
  
• Trump purchased Eastern Air Lines’s shuttle service in 1988 for $365 million and planned to relaunch it as “Trump Shuttle.” But a problem arose—a different company, Trading and Finance Corp. Ltd., was already using the name. In 1989, Trump sued for the rights to the name. [Quote source]
  
• In January 2006, Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit against author Timothy O'Brien and his publisher for understating Trump's wealth. In his book Trump Nation, O'Brien reported that Trump had estimated his worth at between $150 and $250 million. Trump, who said he had told O'Brien that he was worth between $4 billion and $6 billion, claimed that O'Brien's low estimate had hurt his reputation and cost him specific business deals. Trump's suit was dismissed in July 2009, and his subsequent appeal failed in September 2011. [Quote source] [Original article]
  
• Also in 2006, Trump threatened to sue Rosie O’Donnell, then a co-host on The View, after she said he was bankrupt. Trump retaliated in an interview with The Insider, by labeling O’Donnell “disgusting, both inside and out.” He told People “Rosie will rue the words she said. I’ll most likely sue her for making those false statements—and it’ll be fun. Rosie’s a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie.” [Quote source][Interview source]
  
• In 2011, [MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnel] provoked the mogul's wrath when he accused him of being worth less than $1 billion. "I heard, because his show is unwatchable, that @Lawrence has made many false statements last night about me," Trump tweeted. "Maybe I should sue him?" [Quote source]
  
• In February [of 2013], Trump sued comedian Bill Maher who offered, on The Tonight Show, to give Trump $5 million if he could prove that his father was not an orangutan. (The comment was a spoof of Trump's offer to give $5 million to charity if President Obama would release his records and applications for colleges and passports.) Trump dutifully sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate, but the comedian never paid up. "He has not responded, and the reason he hasn't responded is his lawyers probably tell him, 'You've got yourself a problem,' " Trump told Atlantic author William Cohan. Maher later said, on his show, "Donald Trump must learn two things--what a joke is, and what a contract is." [Quote source]
  
• In 2014, Trump sued Trump Entertainment Resorts, which he holds a 10 percent stake in, to remove his name from the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City, which he said did not live up to his standard of quality. [Quote source]
  

This list is not exhaustive, LawNewz.com found that "Donald Trump has been named in at least 169 federal lawsuits."
So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: Individuals, companies, and politicians could use the threat of libel lawsuits as a means to intimidate the free press into silence. Such law suits already exist, referred to as "Strategic lawsuit against public participation," or SLAAP for short, but are largely held in check by the "actual malice requirement" passed in New York Times Co. vs Sullivan.

#7: Donald Trump has advocated for what are legally considered war-crimes.

I know what you're thinking: "I thought this guy was going to give me 10 good reasons not to vote for Donald Trump without saying that 'He's literally Hitler.'" I'm keeping my promise on that.
On December 3rd, 2015 Donald Trump said in a Fox News Interview:

"We're fighting a very politically correct war. The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," [Source] [Video link]

Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, intentionally killing innocent men, women, and children is a war-crime, as is defined in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions...

People who are taking no active part in the hostilities "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever … violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." [[Source]((http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/geneva-conventions/p8778)]

...and Article 51.2.

"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." [Source]

The United States signed the Geneva Conventions in 1955.
Donald Trump also advocates for the use of torture, as he explained at a rally on February 17th, 2016:

“Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works, half these guys [say]: ‘Torture doesn’t work.’ Believe me, it works.”

Vowing at the same event to:

“...bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. Some people say it’s not actually torture — let’s assume it is, but they asked me the question: ‘What are you going to do on waterboarding?’ Absolutely fine, but we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That’s the way I feel.”

And if torture doesn't work? As Mr. Trump stated in November of 2015:

“If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing.”

[Source for the above three quotes.]
Torture in general, including waterboarding, is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and has precedent as being prosecuted as a war crime.
So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: We make a problem that already exists in the Middle East even worse. On September 11th, 2001, 3,000 innocent American men, women, and children were killed in order to send a political message, Donald Trump is proposing that we do the same thing. How did the United States respond? All out warfare for over a decade. Killing innocent civilians would only serve to strengthen the notion that the United States is an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs, and would act as one of the best possible recruiting tools for extremists and terrorists all over the globe. Think of it this way: The worst way to prevent getting stung is to throw rocks at a bee hive.

#6: Donald Trump doesn't believe in climate change, and thinks that "what they [the EPA] do is a disgrace."

On November 6th, 2012, Donald Trump posted the following tweet to his twitter account:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." [Source]

January 29th, 2014:

"Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!" [Source]

Also on January 29th, 2014:

"Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense." [Source]

During an interview with Hugh Hewitt on September 21st, 2015, Donald Trump explained:

"I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems." [Source]

In an interview on September 24th, 2015, Trump said simply:

"I don't believe in climate change." [Source]

And on December 30th, 2015, he explained to a crowd in South Carolina that:

"Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, OK? It's a hoax, a lot of it." [Source]

Though, to be fair, on a January 18th 2016 episode of "Fox & Friends," Donald Trump did go on to explain that:

"I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke." [Source]

This is not an exhaustive list.
Business Insider and PolitiFact both did excellent write-ups on Donald Trump's various stances on climate change. Whether Donald Trump meant what he said about climate change being a hoax, or whether he was just joking about it, is up for debate. Many people who have voted for Donald Trump believe that he is a climate denier, others think that he believes in climate change but that it isn't a problem worth addressing.
On the EPA, Donald Trump has vowed that he would deeply cut spending:

“No, I’m not cutting services, but I’m cutting spending. But I may cut Department of Education. I believe Common Core is a very bad thing. I believe that we should be — you know, educating our children from Iowa, from New Hampshire, from South Carolina, from California, from New York. I think that it should be local education, so the Department of Education is one, Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. They — we'll be fine with the environment, we can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.” [Source]

Mr. Trump hasn't revealed what specific programs he would cut, but it bears mentioning that beyond action against climate change, the EPA is also responsible for: Enforcing policies such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, preventing and litigating the dumping of toxic waste, sponsoring research into environmental threats, educating the public on ways to reduce their environmental impact, and much more. Also of note is the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency was created by Republican President Richard Nixon, not important to the discussion, but an interesting bit of trivia.
So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: EPA funding is cut so deeply that the agency is unable to fulfill their responsibilities, potentially impacting the health of American citizens who breath air or drink water. Cuts could also result in staff reduction at the EPA, hindering their ability to enforce federal laws and regulations, and offering more opportunity for companies and individuals seeking to pollute or dump regulated toxic waste. Ultimately, however, any susscationn in the fight against climate change could have disastrous effects on not just the United States, but the planet as a whole. To echo the findings of a Department of Defense report:

Climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added. [Source]

Not only is climate change a risk to our planet, it also poses a direct risk to our national security. Failing to take action against climate change could have disastrous and far reaching consequences.

5: Donald Trump is a threat to gay rights.

This may come as a surprise to some, considering Trump's personal opinion on homosexuality is rather moderate, but what he's promised to do as President isn't moderate at all. Donald Trump is a supporter of "traditional" marriage, which is to say a marriage between one man and one woman (Previous two wives notwithstanding.) In regards to the recent Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage bans were discriminatory, and therefore unconstitutional, Mr. Trump had this to say:

“Frankly it should have been state – I was very much in favor of having the court rule that it goes to states, and let the states decide. It was a shocking decision for you and for me and for a lot of people. I was in favor of letting the states decide and that’s the way it looked like it was going, and then all of a sudden out of nowhere came this very massive decision and they took it away. I was always in favor of states rights, states deciding – on many issues, not just this.” [Source]

While that sounds very fair on paper, it certainly wouldn't be fair to the homosexual residents of many states. Rather than having a clear national policy on whether homosexuals could get married, we'd have a pock marked map of legality, where gays could get married in some states, and that marriage not be recognized, or legal, in others.
Based on current polling data, if states were given the right to define marriage, homosexuals in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming could see one of their basic civil rights disappear. This is without consideration to states on the fringes of the issue, where the vote could easily swing one way or the other.
As President, Donald Trump would have the responsibility of appointing Supreme Court Justices, meaning that he may have the ability during his four or eight year term to nominate a Judge that would be willing to overturn the ruling on marriage equality. This is something that Mr. Trump is already considering:

Trump: “It has been ruled upon. It has been there. If I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things, but they have a long way to go. At some point we have to get back down to business. But there is no question about it. And most people feel this way. They have ruled on it. I wish it had done by the states. I don’t like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court in that it should be a states’ rights issue.”

Wallace: “Are you saying that if you become President you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?”

Trump: “I would strongly consider that, yes.” [Source]

Donald Trump has also signaled support for the "First Amendment Defense Act," more commonly known as FADA, which would protect individuals like Kim Davis from federal prosecution for denying gay marriage licenses based upon personal religious beliefs. Passing FADA would mean that many counties with a limited number of clerks and judges could, in effect, prevent any gay marriages from occurring

“If Congress considers the First Amendment Defense Act a priority, then I will do all I can to make sure it comes to my desk for signatures and enactment,” [Source]

But Mr. Trump is okay with transgendered individuals using their respective bathrooms, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: Donald Trump nominates Supreme Court Justices that would be willing to overturn the recent ruling on gay marriage, and return the right to discriminate against individuals based upon their sexual identity to the States. He could also sign the First Amendment Defense Act into law, allowing state and federal employees to discriminate against individuals based upon their sexual identity without fear of legal repercussions. Rolling back the Supreme Court decision would put the United States back in the place it had been in 2015, effectively reenacting the gay marriage ban present in 13 states, and the passage of FADA could threaten gay marriage rights in the remaining 37 states.

Click here to view Part 2.

Taken from the main Rivals.com site, which is a College Football website.
"McGregor and 10 others are scheduled for arraignment Friday morning in federal court in Montgomery on charges accusing them of buying and selling votes on pro-gambling legislation. The bigger picture here is that the Feds have been investigating Milton McGregor (A major Auburn Booster and the owner of VictoryLand, which is located just outside of Montgomery) for quite some time. The Feds are investigating efforts to pass gambling legislation in Alabama and money laundering schemes involving McGregor and other prominent Alabama politicians and Auburn boosters. The Feds have tape from wire taps made on McGregor and other prominent Auburn boosters from their investigation. The Newton's were just shopping their talent's to the wrong people at the wrong time and thus there is hard evidence available that incriminates everyone involved. It's only a matter of time that all of this information becomes public. FBI found out about Cam before the NCAA did while wiretapping Milton McGregor and others related to the casino/bingo indictments. They uncovered conversations with McGregor, Auburn and Cam's uncle in Michigan. McGregor paid $250K to the uncle through a PAC and other hidden entities and the uncle funneled the money to Cecil. The FBI gave this information to the NCAA sometime after the indictments were handed down. They had to sit on the information for 6 months until the grand jury indicted the men and women in the gambling deal. All of the wiretap information was sealed and that is why the delay in investigating. The NCAA had to go to Miss St to see if Cecil had solicited money from them as well. That is why Miss St is involved. They are basically connecting all of the dots. Miss St may be cleared because they told Cecil no. He then went to Auburn. The offer was on the table from McGregor but Cam wanted to play at Miss St and not Auburn. When Miss St declined to pay him, he went to where the money was... hence the comment, "The money was too much." The FBI met with the Miss St coaches, John Bond and Bill Bell today to get their official statements."