Trump comparing himself to 9/11 actually seems fair.

My understanding is that in the 1st round of voting the top 3 vote getters were about as pro-conservative as anyone could imagine a French vote to get. Francois Fillon, aka the French Reagan, came in 3rd. The two remaining candidates are Macron who want to expand free trade, a lower corporate tax rate, a lower payroll tax rate, limits on France's wealth tax, and more labor market deregulation and Le Pen who has been called the French TRUMP.

It sounds like Macron is near a lock to become the next French President.

lol Macron is centrist in France, which puts him to the left of like 80% of US Democrats. In France, just like in America, a plurality voted against the right wing idiot, but in France, they have a sensible enough system that that actually matters.

Trump's personal statement on Holocaust Remembrance day includes a sentence startlingly similar to the definition the U.S. Holocaust Museum has on their website

green = Trump statement, red = original:

With help from Google, I did some independent research into how Trump likely came across this page to begin with while composing his statement:

It is unclear why you posted that.

The holocaust is one of the most talked about events in world history. Should we really be surprised when someone describes the horrific event similar to the way some other person described them previously? Or are we supposed to be disgusted by how right he is? Or are we just trying to nitpick and find something to complain about trump for?

lol, oh poor mickey - Trump doing this is certainly not a "surprise".

btw, you're an accountant, what are your thoughts on Trump's tax reform? Apparently the White House isn't even really sure what they're gonna do yet!

If we weren't supposed to be surprised by trump saying that about the Holocaust then why did you post it?

I am not an accountant and I have never worked as an accountant.

Because it's hilarious, although I expect some thread participants will be drastically less amused at this than others.

Sorry, what's your profession then? I thought it was something where you were claiming expertise in taxes awhile back.

No, I have never worked any job where I presented myself as being a tax expert or given any tax advice. I previously had a job in the finance world (which had some tax implications), but now I don't do anything related to taxes or finances.

Ok but what I am really wanting to know is why did he seem presidential to her. There are lot's of likeable people out there who aren't seriously asked if they plan on being the president. Was she just acquiescing to the racist order of society with that question? The guy is white and wealthy so...let's give him implicit approval for being our ruler even though he's nothing but a trust fund baby/real estate hustler???

But is Trump even likeable? I guess you have to concede he is, for those who aren't repulsed by the guy, by definition, since he got elected. Still, he hardly ever laughs. He takes himself very seriously. He stupid. I've always felt he was like something you watch with morbid fascination, the paradox of Trump as the absolute worse thing our society produces while, at the same time, an iconic American success story because he is rich and famous. It just shows you how far people's minds are warped with conditioning that they would look at such a buffoon and, based on cues of social order alone, and not on any real qualifications at all, think that that person has a credible presidential ambition.

I mean it doesn't matter too much in the long run but with near infinite resources at their disposal and access to practically anyone to write something they do the same thing I got a failing grade for in my freshman Spanish class. Just needed a "Webster defines a Holocaust as....."

I called him presidential and likable. I'm not sure what else I could have said that would have made it more clear I was kidding. He is not likeable at all.

After his presidency if you asked me to rank our recent former presidents who I'd most want to have a beer with he would be near the last I'd choose. Obama would likely be #1 as he seems like an interesting and fun guy to be around.

You did ask a good question. I too am curious why she would have asked him that, but unless someone asks her I don't see us getting a real answer.

goddamn that's some stronk posting

Some think Trump has charisma. I don't see it but then again I never saw Obama's charisma either. It was a down cycle for charisma in the republican primary, and that's really saying something. Clinton was the only recent president with charisma in my view. Carter is the only one I think I could tolerate long enough for a drink.

Bahbah, since mw is a big issue to you, I was wondering if you'd comment on the below link stating that mw increases do not have the negative effect on employment you claim.

http://ritholtz.com/2017/04/no-corre...oyment-levels/

Looking all the way back to to 1938 is a flaw since our economy now and then are so different.

It is also a flaw to consider date where the raise in MW doesn't significantly increase MW above the market rate since there are thousands of other factors that effect employment. For instance if the market rate for cheap labor is $5/hr & you raise MW from $4/hr to $4.95/hr there would be no significant changes along w/ a change from $5.10/hr to $5.20/hr.

This study looks at employment before and after a minimum wage raise. I have never claimed every time MW goes up there is less employment. I have said that MW raises significantly above the market value for un-skilled work does decrease employment from where it otherwise would be (not where it was before the raise).

Fun analogy I really think you are going to like: I recently pushed my car down a valley 22 times with out using gas to go down the hill to test the cars speed going down the hill and then back up the other hill on the other side of the valley. I noticed in all 22 cases when I started going up the hill and I slightly hit the gas pedal my car slowed down. As your logic points out I think it is reasonable to assume anytime someone hits the gas pedal in their car they are likely to slow down.

Study after study finds the same thing: living wage laws are good for the economy, do not reduce employment overall, do reduce turnover and quality of life, and reduce public dependency on food stamps, public housing, and other so-called "welfare" benefits:

http://www.superiortelegram.com/news...t-affect-taxes
Right now what you have is taxpayers subsidizing big corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. When they don't pay their employees a living wage, somebody has to pick up the tab. These workers end up getting food stamps and other assistance at the taxpayer's expense.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc.../#953bc61720b7

The minimum wage has always been raised at the bottom of the hill?

What the **** are you talking about? Try talking like someone who's actually attended a school in their life, if you're capable.

So you have no evidence to support your claims that living wage laws hurt the economy except for feels? Correct?

"Knauss analyzed data from airports, since they are located nationwide and employ people in the public and private sectors. He says jobs that pay between 15 and 20 dollars per hour tend to keep workers over the long term. "The turnover in those jobs tends to be staggering because whenever anybody can find a job that pays a little bit more they'll quit. So what they find is when you raise the wages of these jobs the turnover declines substantially. The productivity of the worker increases because they become more experienced and better at what they do."

This is literally a quote from your 1st article. I hope I don't have to explain the flaw in logic here.

Your second article: "Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps"

I have already posted an article debunking this myth. The study that came up with that $6.2B number has already came out and basically said it makes no sense how we arrived at that $6.2B (basically cherry picking numbers that no reasonable person can believe are close to reality).

If you want me to teach you about MW please go to the MW thread with these questions.

This thread is for us to discuss all the ways in which America is great again.

Do you believe Walmart is going to instead eat the 6.5 billion? Or perhaps raise prices (which would raise the "living wage" required)? Who is going to cover the cost of the higher wages?

Prices will go up slightly, that's the price of living in a humane society, people. If you continue to treat unskilled workers like literally livestock that you can abuse and put in cages, they are eventually going to riot and take everything you have.

How far mickey's MW expertise has fallen when his entire argument is "correlation is not causation" (well, that's how educated people put it, mickey puts it in to a tortured paragraph-long analogy about cars and hills or something), which in this case is to admit that the statistics offer no evidence for his side whatsoever! All he can do is try to cast doubt about what the statistics mean for the opposing side.

The most amazing thing in modern politics is that Democrats are viewed as the enemy of coal miners and carpenters and electricians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Republican policies continue to push wealth to the top 0.1% with no regard for the massive amounts of people that actually make our economy work every single day. Support progressive politicians that give a **** about you, quit supporting Republicans that only believe the Owning Class should be treated as human beings.