Somebody forgot about shipping and handling.
The dinosaurs selected "cheapest delivery method" without reading the fine-print.
1) A fool and his money are soon parted
2) There's a sucker born every minute.
2) Force employers to pay a 10% tax on that salary
Isn't this the part where all the "free market" believers tell us that "companies never pay taxes, they just pass them on to their customers"?
So far, we've got Trump proposing a 35% tax on US companies that build products overseas and Slashdot fools telling us that raising taxes on companies will lead to greater employment.
Did something change with the Trump inauguration that's suddenly made believers in "economic liberty and small government" love taxes?
those are your choices with pretty much every single product in the world.
No. There are more smartphones than cars in the world, but I can buy a Ford with an automatic transmission, a manual transmission, a big trunk, a small trunk, hatchback, truck bed or 20" rims that spin backward when I drive.
So where is my 2017 Samsung or Apple with a replaceable battery?
yeah right. trump, THE corporate whore is going to fight against his own kind.
and pigs will fly, soon, too.
I'd expect clinton to fight business greed more than a REPUBLICAN who is ONLY a rich fucker and has no skills other than inheriting a lot and failing, constantly.
4) create a secret shopper program where well-qualified 'testers' apply for jobs and if they are turned down, an OFFICIAL (and expensive, if the company is found to be fraudulently rejecting locals) investigation would occur. one that has PUBLIC RESULTS POSTED for anyone to see. public shaming, big-time, for violators.
without a secret shopper program, there's no good way to keep the fucking companies honest. they'll continue to pay lawyers to find loopholes. but if they are publicly shamed, they'll stop. guaranteed!
and after seeing the shithole that is most of india, the extreme corruption (that makes the US look like saints) they'll be back in a flash.
bring it on! the sooner they experience this, the better.
I suspect we have different definitions of "fascism", which I don't want to delve into here.
Good luck firing Jews that exceed their quota
What specifically is this in reference to? I would note that quotas should be based on what's available in the workforce. For example, if group X gets 20% more college degrees in finance, then we should realistically expect 20% more of group X in finance careers.
good luck firing 87% of the Blacks (13% in the US) employees at the all Black Entertainment Television.
I'm sure the laws can work out some exceptions, such as entertainment or political shows catering to specific ethnic groups, at least for the parts of the business that relate to cultural issues.
Drawing perfect lines in the sand may be unrealistic, but that's civilization: compromising and cutting deals to keep the peace.
I'd like to grab her by the pussy
You can't afford that pussy.
But you can rent one just like it at certain Moscow hotels.
If a trade war starts, we've already lost.
In the short term, maybe. But I won't rule out that we can get a "better deal" than what we have now when the war finally plays out.
However, I do think it unlikely that we'll get a sufficiently better deal to compensate for what's lost during the battle. It's like winning a physical war only to realize half your population is dead.
If T is such a great negotiator, why are there still about 500 people richER than him, most of whom don't claim they have super-human negotiating skills.
I expect to there be less government under Trump, I may be wrong though. I expect reduction in government interference to the individuals (and when I say individuals I do mean people who are mostly abused by the power, those who have something to take away from, thus businesses and yes businesses are people.) That's the only thing that matters, one thing, the only thing, the singularity of things: less government interference.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
And that's why today Sheldon Adelson was the first billionaire donor ever to attend an inaugural luncheon.
Trump did not "self-fund" his campaign. That's a rural myth.
They just didn't make the decision that you wanted the to make.
When were consumers given the choice of buying a slightly fatter S7 with a bigger, safer battery?
When were iPhone 7 consumers given that decision?
In the rust belt. Full stop. Young people, blacks and Latinos stayed home. If you doubt me 538 had a meticulously sourced article on the subject. Hilary was arrogant. She assumed no sane country would elect Trump. She was wrong, and we're all gonna pay for it. For God's sake people, vote in your mid terms.
Nate Silver is a smart guy, but he relies too much on the models and not the context or the assumptions.
The actual context is that Hillary lost the popular vote by a small margin, which means that *any* of about two dozen reasons could have flipped the election the other way.
It's like viewing a stack of books one inch higher than another stack, and saying that the reason is a specific book halfway up isn't big enough.
The reality is that Clinton could have done better in any one of : her political dealings during the election (getting debate answers, screwing Bernie supporters, superdelegates, and so on), her financing and backing (Moroccan meeting, Saudi donations, Soros), her image (not attending rallies and letting others do her campaigning for her, coming across as cold and unfeeling, "I feel your pain"), or her past actions (the server, her actions during Benghazi, Russian unfreeze, Clinton Foundation shenanigans).
It's hard to imagine Trump doing better in any of his several categories (meaning: there's nothing he could have done to mitigate).
Pretty-much any one of these would have upped her popular vote by the 1% she needed to beat Trump and win several more electoral colleges. The reliable polls pointed out that she had some 1024 ways to win, while Trump had only four.
538 isn't the oracle of prediction that everyone thinks it is. Nate's basic premise is that "past performance predicts future actions", which has been completely disproven this year.
So for example, Nate predicted that Trump's presidency would go down in flames early last year, predicted 80% chance Trump would lose the general election, and noted that Congressional endorsements are the best predictor of the primary candidate; meaning, Ted Cruse would win the primary.
538 is racking up a long list of failed predictions.
The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.