The Nobel Peace Prize committee is investigating whether the Trump Nobel nomination was forged.
I Think you meant The Nobel Piss Prize Committee. Yes?
How do you forge a nomination? Don’t you just, you know, nominate someone? 
The nomination has to come from a select group of nominators. Sounds like someone not eligible to nominate…well, forged a nomination as coming from someone who IS eligible.
Huh. Never knew that. Makes sense though.
Shit, I’ve done that before. Only it wasn’t a Nobel nomination, it was a subscription card for Hustler. And it wasn’t Donald Trump, it was this dude in my 10th grade Geometry class.
[Moderating]
Don’t call other posters cunts.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
So, of course, Dickless Trumpus was lying as always about paying off Stormy Daniels. The brilliant legal mind of 911 Giuliani determined that it was best for the so-called “president” to be outed as a dishonest punk. Nope, no campaign violation here. Hey, look over there! Hillary something Comey something.
Let’s require Trump to dress up as Bozo the Clown and then change the national anthem to Yakety Sax.
I don’t remember saying that. Did I say that?
I do remember pointing out that the Trumpian narratives around unemployment figures and stock market growth abruptly switched to their polar opposites once there was a change in administration. Perhaps that’s what you’re thinking of.
Maybe Pence thinks that “the rule of law” means “using a ruler to lay down the law”?
I think the feeling of unease that has boosted Trump, and has lead to the whole “amateurs must be better than professional politicians” movement of the last ten years or so, is not really being caused by unemployment per se. It’s more the fact that while jobs are fairly plentiful, most of them are really shit, especially for non-professionals. Used to be, after all, a person with a good (union) job could support a whole family on one income. More recently, an additional part time income has become useful, and lately many are finding it necessary for the maintenance of a family. Even so, things are tight, and many can’t afford to do much more than exist.
The fact is, wages have remained flat for quite some time*. People have a real reason for feeling disadvantaged compared to their parents and grandparents, and nobody seems to be doing anything to raise their standard of living.
At the same time, corporate profits and compensation for the upper levels of those corporations have skyrocketed.
Republicans continue to insist that wages will rise if the corporations are taxed less; thus far, that’s been pretty well disproven. Still, they can message that people are being held back not by the stingy corporations, but by “them”. Welfare recipients, immigrants, and all the usual scapegoats. Having someone to blame for their struggle is a powerful comfort, and it’s a tool that’s been used countless times throughout history.
*I don’t have the stats/graphs handy, but I think it’s been a flat line for the last 15-20 years. I’m open to correction.
Or “dammit, I should have used a bigger dose on him while I had the chance”
I’ve seen articles saying there’s been a 10 % rise in real wages for an individual since 1973. That there has been a perception of a rise in purchasing power due to the rising number of two-income households and increased credit, but once you correct for that, remuneration has been close to stagnant.
Anecdotally, I’ve noted over my time of noticing these things that people in Western Europe seems to have had increasing standards of living since the 70s. While the USA has steadily posted higher growth rates.
Might be a GD subject.
Well, some European countries were really low to begin with, such as Spain and the Eastern Bloc countries (which includes a good chunk of Germany). Those alone have to skew the stats by a lot.
Another possibility is that the developed world living standards curve naturally flattens once living standards hit a certain level, and that the US just hit the top first. However, it would also be consistent with observations to guess that a greater percentage of the growth go to the middle class in Europe.
But I think we are drifting of topic.
My quibble isn’t with you, but with The Guardian’s reporting. The claim that “rich people voted for Trump” is simply wrong. Among the >$100,000 income group, Trump and Clinton fared equally, 47% each. When you note that the high-income group is much more white than America’s average you see that the White–>Trump correlation was much weaker among the high income group. Among the $50-$100,000 group, Trump eked a 49-46 advantage. Again, since blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately low income, this was LESS than race would predict. Even in the >$250,000 income group Trump’s lead was only 48 to 46.
IOW, income was a poor predictor of the vote but if you insist on it, it was POOR whites who overwhelmingly voted for Trump, not rich whites.
The only mechanisms for explaining such a limit are:
- At a certain point, the economy as a whole stops producing the goods and services needed to improve living standards.
- At a certain point, the goods and services needed to improve living standards start being diverted elsewhere.
There is no evidence for (1) and scads of evidence for (2)… and no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the effect is better explained as an inevitable natural phenomenon rather than the more intuitive explanation that it results from deliberate policy choices by the beneficiaries of the diversion.
It will be funny if it’s not just someone trolling, but was sent in on White House stationary. Really wouldn’t surprise me at this point.
I’m sure that it will turn out to have three perfectly valid signatures from John Miller, John Barron, and David Dennison.
So, will Rudy beat the Mooch for most quickly fired? 10 days is hard to top, but I think Rudy can do it.