I don't think Vlad will take the pay cut

Seeing as President of Russia he gets $60k and as SoS he would get $205k...

 

Not that it really matters, he gets most his $$ from running the joint like a racketeering business anyway.

 

 

My opinion is most heavily influenced by my life experience in the lower class. I've been to a lot of areas with a lot of unemployed, working age, people. Competition can get rather fierce for crappy low-wage jobs. Some of the worst was from the recession, granted, but things are still not very good for the lower class.

Maybe this is an unpopular response (in fact, I know it is), but if one is in an area with poor economic opportunities: then move.

Every American literally moved to this country, or to the land that would become this country, or within this country in search of better opportunities.  Native Americans followed huntable animals across Beringia.  People from the Old World since 1492 have come seeking land, jobs, and fortune.  The only exception might be African Americans whose ancestors were forcibly relocated here against their will, but even so, many of their grandparents moved internally seeking a better place to live in the during the Great Migration from 1910-1970.

To show that I'm not speaking purely academically, I'll use my family as an example: On one side, my ancestors came here to escape the Irish Potato Famine and the brutality of British rule over Ireland.  On the other side, they were Jews from the then-Russian Empire, who got tired of having their wealth and lives threatened by the repeated pogroms.  Both sides had to move repeatedly for employment reasons before settling in New York for a few decades (ca. 1930-1990), then again moving to various other states in the 1990s.

Point is: Americans used to move to seek better lives, and it is still a way to get ahead which is why those on upward trajectories move to vibrant cities like SF which are responsible for an increasing share of our nation's GDP.  By contrast, those who refuse to uproot themselves like their own ancestors did, are, and think themselves to be, on downward paths.

 

One poignant expression of this idea that sticking around somewhere that is economically depressed is a poor choice comes from an article in the National Review:

 The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. ... The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

(emphasis mine)

 

 

 

That doesn't mean absolutely no good can come from flirting with it. Even if the good is simply the current generation getting first-hand context on why free trade is better than protectionism. I know it's far from the ideal way to learn it but yeah, every few hundred years we might need a reminder.

Maybe you are right, maybe a reminder is necessary.  When it goes poorly, I'm sure going to resent the negative impact on my life, particularly since it will come during what ought to be my prime earning years.
I do hope that there are not worse things than protectionism that we need to be reminded are bad.  For example, note the part of my ancestry about Jews and pogroms: we had the Inquisition (most intense in the 15th & 16th centuries) and those pogroms (19th & 20th centuries).  A cynical reading of the repetitive view of history says they'll be more in the 22nd.  Again, hopefully no "reminders" will be necessary that state-sponsored anti-Semitic violence is also bad.

Maybe this is an unpopular response (in fact, I know it is), but if one is in an area with poor economic opportunities: then move. Every American literally moved to this country, or to the land that would become this country, or within this country in search of better opportunities. Native Americans followed huntable animals across Beringia. People from the Old World since 1492 have come seeking land, jobs, and fortune. The only exception might be African Americans whose ancestors were forcibly relocated here against their will, but even so, many of their grandparents moved internally seeking a better place to live in the during the Great Migration from 1910-1970. To show that I'm not speaking purely academically, I'll use my family as an example: On one side, my ancestors came here to escape the Irish Potato Famine and the brutality of British rule over Ireland. On the other side, they were Jews from the then-Russian Empire, who got tired of having their wealth and lives threatened by the repeated pogroms. Both sides had to move repeatedly for employment reasons before settling in New York for a few decades (ca. 1930-1990), then again moving to various other states in the 1990s. Point is: Americans used to move to seek better lives, and it is still a way to get ahead which is why those on upward trajectories move to vibrant cities like SF which are responsible for an increasing share of our nation's GDP. By contrast, those who refuse to uproot themselves like their own ancestors did, are, and think themselves to be, on downward paths.

 

Yep that's not going to get you a lot of popularity points if you went from poor community to poor community telling everyone to move. Moving costs money, which poor people do not have much of by definition.

 

And those example you cite in history, it was a different time. America was the 'new world', it was a new frontier that kept steadily expanding until recently.  Now everything is settled, mapped, regulated, all land is either privately or government owned and either way they probably don't want you on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's already a good number of homeless and unemployed in SF, NYC, etc. (and keep in mind whatever numbers you find are probably softened at least a bit. Having homeless & unemployed isn't something to brag about)

 

 

Maybe you are right, maybe a reminder is necessary. When it goes poorly, I'm sure going to resent the negative impact on my life, particularly since it will come during what ought to be my prime earning years. I do hope that there are not worse things than protectionism that we need to be reminded are bad. For example, note the part of my ancestry about Jews and pogroms: we had the Inquisition (most intense in the 15th & 16th centuries) and those pogroms (19th & 20th centuries). A cynical reading of the repetitive view of history says they'll be more in the 22nd. Again, hopefully no "reminders" will be necessary that state-sponsored anti-Semitic violence is also bad.

 

What/who are you going to be resentful towards?

 

And by the way, for all we know the protectionism (or the movement that comes along with it) could advert a bigger disaster in the future. I know we've got a lot of economic things literally down to a science but I still don't think we know it all and can say for sure how everything will be effected especially in the long-term. We have elections every 4 years so this may not last that long. I mean, there is some possibility that America does well in the next 4-8 years. It is not a 'guaranteed fact' that we're going to do bad just because there is some flirting with protectionism.

 

The reminder thing was a bare minimum benefit assuming things clearly get worse from it.

 

 

Yep that's not going to get you a lot of popularity points if you went from poor community to poor community telling everyone to move. Moving costs money, which poor people do not have much of by definition.

A totally fair point, which is why it would be great if there was some kind of assistance program aimed at helping people move to more economically-vibrant areas.  We already have programs aimed at retraining people, but they often fail to result in meaningful improvement because of poor implementation and because the retrained person remains in a place with bad employment options.
However, on the other hand, very few people have been perpetually poor (intergenerational income mobility is not as high as it used to be, but is still high).  It should have been clear that the world was changing (as my original chart at the beginning of this conversation showed with respect to perpetually declining % of jobs in manufacturing from 1950 onwards).  I mean, I can put up this article from the 1982 New York Times about an 80% decline in steelworker jobs in Jonestown, PA from 1977-1982.  Not all the steel mills closed simultaneously, so an entire industry was not made unemployed and poor overnight, but it should have been obvious that (1) the industry was in decline and (2) finding something new to do, possibly somewhere else, would be advised.

 

 

And those example you cite in history, it was a different time. America was the 'new world', it was a new frontier that kept steadily expanding until recently.  Now everything is settled, mapped, regulated, all land is either privately or government owned and either way they probably don't want you on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's already a good number of homeless and unemployed in SF, NYC, etc. (and keep in mind whatever numbers you find are probably softened at least a bit. Having homeless & unemployed isn't something to brag about)

Well, the "American Frontier" was official deemed closed based on the data of the 1890 Census.

Yet, several large internal migrations occurred after this time.  First, the 1910s-1970s Great Migration I mentioned earlier.  Second, movements induced by the Dust Bowl, such as the "Okies" who moved from Oklahoma to California in the 1930s.  To get back to the earlier comment about poor people being unable to move because they are poor, I would note that uneducated Black sharecroppers and farmers who have had their farms foreclosed upon were also poor people - their net worths were probably not much different from $0 at the time they moved north or west, respectively.

Yes, there are homeless and unemployed people in SF and NYC (there are everywhere), but this does not change the fact that on average the people in these places are more economically productive, and that these places have positive business/job growth (whereas rural areas don't) - see this Washington Post article and specifically the main chart in it.  Specifically regarding the homeless people, I suspect that a large number of them have untreated mental health issues (which it would be great to address) and congregate in cities because there are more people, with more money, who might take pity on them and give a dollar - if not, organized assistance (government, religious, and/or humanitarian) are more concentrated in cities.

 

 

 

What/who are you going to be resentful towards?

Those responsible for approving policies that would be expected to reduce economic growth without a clear upside, and the persons who empowered them?
I'd be equally resentful if I was forced to accept an eminent domain buyout of my property at below-market rates for a "bridge to nowhere" type of project that voters/politicians approved for some reason.

 

 

 

We have elections every 4 years so this may not last that long. I mean, there is some possibility that America does well in the next 4-8 years. It is not a 'guaranteed fact' that we're going to do bad just because there is some flirting with protectionism.

This is all true - nothing is guaranteed.  I want to make clear that although I do not approve of Mr. Trump as a person, and do not agree with most of his policies, I am not rooting for him to fail so I can be right and say "told you so" to people who did support him.  Ultimately, I will be pleasantly surprised if he does a decent job, but I think if he does, it will be by pursuing more accepted policies (e.g. broad changes to corporate taxes and regulations), rather than one-off deals like the Carrier silliness or protectionist measures.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't read this thread, but:

 

 

 

 

That's as good as Trump picking El Chapo to head the DEA (seen that one a ton on Facebook).

 

 

 

 

Have you seen this one?

Shouldn't Putin's pic be above Trump?

First electoral vote for a native american!

 

even funnier when it comes from a faithless Hillary voter (ignoring the funzies with 3 also voting for Powel )

 

 

A totally fair point, which is why it would be great if there was some kind of assistance program aimed at helping people move to more economically-vibrant areas. We already have programs aimed at retraining people, but they often fail to result in meaningful improvement because of poor implementation and because the retrained person remains in a place with bad employment options. However, on the other hand, very few people have been perpetually poor (intergenerational income mobility is not as high as it used to be, but is still high). It should have been clear that the world was changing (as my original chart at the beginning of this conversation showed with respect to perpetually declining % of jobs in manufacturing from 1950 onwards). I mean, I can put up this article from the 1982 New York Times about an 80% decline in steelworker jobs in Jonestown, PA from 1977-1982. Not all the steel mills closed simultaneously, so an entire industry was not made unemployed and poor overnight, but it should have been obvious that (1) the industry was in decline and (2) finding something new to do, possibly somewhere else, would be advised.

Well as I said before, focusing on service jobs that can't be outsourced/automated seems like a smart thing to do. One of my main points that I'm trying to get across here is that you may still get screwed. I question if there are enough service jobs available for non-college educated people, in fact I'm fairly certain there is not. We already agreed there is at least 1.4 unemployed per job available. That means nearly 33% of unemployed people are just outta luck. That number is probably just going to continue to rise as robotics improve and more jobs are replaced.

 

Well, the "American Frontier" was official deemed closed based on the data of the 1890 Census. Yet, several large internal migrations occurred after this time. First, the 1910s-1970s Great Migration I mentioned earlier. Second, movements induced by the Dust Bowl, such as the "Okies" who moved from Oklahoma to California in the 1930s.

Just because it was deemed closed in 1890 doesn't mean it wasn't still unnaturally prosperous due to being recently acquired. It still wasn't well-settled and a majority of it's potential tapped until more recently.

Anyway, I'm not saying migration is impossible. Just that there isn't as obviously prosperous lands to move to (especially en masse). And that Migration may not be as easy today. People don't know how to live that life as well. People used to be better at living off the land, and there used to be more.. 'wild' land to live off of. People used to be more self-reliant. Also communities used to be closer, families were much bigger.

Not saying moving to a more prosperous region isn't still a good idea but that it may not be quite as viable today as it once was. 2016 is pretty different even from 1970. I doubt that there is perfect historical comparison. Though of course migrations will still happen under dire circumstances. (like the Dust Bowl, or Syria)

 

 

Second, movements induced by the Dust Bowl, such as the "Okies" who moved from Oklahoma to California in the 1930s.

Just to add some personal experience to back up what Niels is saying... this was how my entire family came to California. All my Grandparents migrated to California from Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl. My Mother's father was a dairyman, and my Father's father was a horseman. Entire communities left Oklahoma for California... they were all friends. My parents knew each other as children. They all moved away from total devastation, and moved into total success. So, all my Grandparents were "Okies"... and I miss them all. If you can't make it where you are... you have to go where the money is.

 

 

One of my main points that I'm trying to get across here is that you may still get screwed. I question if there are enough service jobs available for non-college educated people, in fact I'm fairly certain there is not. We already agreed there is at least 1.4 unemployed per job available. That means nearly 33% of unemployed people are just outta luck. That number is probably just going to continue to rise as robotics improve and more jobs are replaced.

 

I do agree that one may very well still end up "screwed," but it is better to take action so that one may not, rather than remain as is, where it is already happening or looks certain to happen.
Your point about automation and robotics is almost certainly correct, which is why I am highly skeptical about Trump (or any politician) claiming that they will "bring back jobs" that can easily be automated.  Instead of trying to somehow reverse the trend of increased use of robotics, we really should be thinking about what we should do when they limit the number of jobs available by the 10s of millions.  Maybe a universal basic income is the answer, maybe not, but forward-looking ideas are what really should be discussed, not trying to remake the economy of old, as I think Trump and his supporters will mistakenly try.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm not saying migration is impossible. Just that there isn't as obviously prosperous lands to move to (especially en masse). And that Migration may not be as easy today.

 

 

If you can't make it where you are... you have to go where the money is.

 

There are some options.  Below I've got the GDP per capita of each of the US states (both nominal, in yellow, and cost-of-living adjusted, in blue):

(Higher resolution is here: http://i.imgur.com/WdfQqJR.jpg)

 

If one is not happy with KY or WV, try out AK, WY, or ND.  All of these states have an economic basis on resource extraction (so I am not suggesting someone suddenly move from being an unemployed ex-coal-miner in KY to a corporate lawyer in DE).  Their level of educational achievement is similar (KY is in 47th place for percent of population with college degree and WY is in 40th), so lacking a degree is not an impediment.  Yet, as the chart shows, it is much better to live in AK/WY/ND/NE/SD than KY/WV/AL/ME (again, I am trying to select states that seem broadly similar in terms of economy, education, and culture to make the relocation suggestion as fair as possible).

Let's take moving from WV to WY for example.  Despite Trump's claims, Appalachian coal jobs are not coming back: they peaked back in 1940, way before any of the environmental regulations after 1970.  Appalachian coal has been undercut in the market by western coal (compare Appalachian coal at $1.92/mmbtu to Powder River Basin coal at $0.63/mmbtu) - the Powder River Basin is in Wyoming - and natural gas.  But the fact that coal extraction in one place has been replaced by coal and natural gas extraction elsewhere means that there are opportunities for relocation with similar employment, and with better wages (again, see chart above), even if one is not working in the exact same job, just in the new location.

Turns out this is probably happening to some extent: WV was the only state to lose population from 2010 Census and 2014 estimate.*

Opportunities still exist, even for those of limited education, though they don't necessarily exist in WV, KY, southwest PA, southeast OH, etc.

* - though part of the decline has to be attributed to the high rate of deaths from opioid overdoses in WV.  Frankly, not being surrounded by that would be reason enough to leave even if there was not an economic reason, IMHO.

Still not that easy/safe to try to move to AL to ND with no money, you'd have to walk/hitchhike and when you get there you'll be homeless. But if someone is really desperate and has nothing to lose, it's probably worth the risk. Might as well try it, right? xD

So this has been a good 3-week discussion. I really agree with most of what you say I just felt at first you made it seem so easy for the extreme poor to get a job and do fine. Wanted to point out the difficulties they experience. I see now though you put a lot of thought into this and are trying your best to find the best solutions for people. I appreciate that.

It's unfortunate Hillary offered no change and no inspiration. Next election hopefully we get Democrat candidates who are more passionate about solutions you are suggesting here.

Still not that easy/safe to try to move to AL to ND with no money, you'd have to walk/hitchhike and when you get there you'll be homeless. But if someone is really desperate and has nothing to lose, it's probably worth the risk. Might as well try it, right? xD

 

So this has been a good 3-week discussion. I really agree with most of what you say I just felt at first you made it seem so easy for the extreme poor to get a job and do fine. Wanted to point out the difficulties they experience. I see now though you put a lot of thought into this and are trying your best to find the best solutions for people. I appreciate that.

 

It's unfortunate Hillary offered no change and no inspiration. Next election hopefully we get Democrat candidates who are more passionate about solutions you are suggesting here.

 

You're absolutely right it is a difficult thing to do with no money (which is a lot of people, because somehow, 46% of people in this country couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency - something that seems totally flabbergasting to me).

 

The challenges are great, though they are not as great for the white working class that consensus thinks were most important in deciding this election.  As that link shows, the poorest whites are still more likely than the poorest blacks and the poorest Hispanics to be able to pull together the emergency cash.  Although I don't have numbers handy, I expect they also have a much higher rate of car ownership, which means that they'd have a better chance of not having to hitchhike to ND than an African American in an economically distressed urban area (e.g. Flint, Michigan).

Regardless, I think you are right that the challenge is too much for many, which is why I would look favorably upon a relocation assistance program.  The country is presently experiencing an all-time low in percentage of people moving, which almost certainly decreases overall national economic vitality (particularly if it prevents someone from following my WV to WY advice and increasing their cost-of-living adjusted contribution to GDP by 80%).

 

I also happened to come across an article on the possible future effects of automation, which is quoted in part here:

They estimate that only 9 percent of jobs are at risk in the next decade or two. However a separate analysis by Carl Frey and Michael Osbourne, which asked a panel of experts on AI to classify occupations by how likely automation would be to replace them, found that 47 percent of US jobs are at risk.

...

The study by Frey and Osbourne, for example, found that 83 percent of jobs paying $20 or less an hour would be pressured by AI, compared to just 4 percent of jobs paying $40 an hour or more.

I think that really underscores how big of a disruption to the economy we are going to see soon.  Even just the 9% in the next 1-2 decades would be 14-16M jobs, depending on the future rate of economic growth (it would be 13M if employment remained static at late-2016 levels).  The fact that Trump's campaign is rhetorically a backward-looking one (the "again" part of "Make America Great Again"), and that he seems predisposed to disregard expertise really suggests to me that he's unprepared for the challenge to come, and may unfortunately delay us taking intelligent steps to try to get ahead of these automation-induced changes.

 

I haven't had a chance to review the entire federal report upon which the article and quoted excerpt were taken, since it is 55 pages long, but I'm sure it has a lot of interesting analysis.  The fact that it was requested and published by the current administration suggests that Pres. Obama, et al., perceive this coming issue, though it is not clear that they had any comprehensive ideas for addressing it either, and have obviously run out of time to come up with something.

 

Thanks for the good conversation!

Let's kick this thing back to life with some funzies:

 

https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest/status/815675220937707520

 

but it gets even better!

 

https://twitter.com/HamillHimself/status/817901534948179968

 

meanwhile, Petty McPetty was out being anoyed his "good" name got tarnished:

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/818419002548568064

 

I really wonder if the White House Correspondents' Dinner will have this as its act for 2017:

 

Yes I made this picture into a link, deal with it!

Thanks for chiming in Betsy... and proving my next point.

 

If you're a Democrat, a Progressive, a Socialist, a Communist, an Anarchist, an illegal alien, a terrorist, or a supporter of the UN agenda... humor is the only thing you have left to help you get through what is going to happen during the next few months.

 

Thanks to everything that was done in the past 8 years by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Eric Holder, and every underling ever appointed, employed by, or supporting them... their combined efforts lost over 1000 State Legislature seats, over 60 House seats, 12 Senators, the President, and very soon, the Supreme Court. Thank you so much.

 

The only thing that can possibly be done to slow it down is a lefty version of The Tea Party. This was what we did to slow things down to a crawl until we could get Scott Brown elected to the Senate, and take the House away from Nancy Pelosi a year later.

 

But, this can't possibly work... because we were able to move to the right, and clean out the RINO's that were causing the problem. The left has already moved as far left as possible, and already cleared out all the Blue Dog Democrats. They are now extinct. This position is what has been soundly defeated... and there is no way the Democrats in charge are going to surrender their position on the far left, and move to the center to counter the Republican position. So really it's just going to get worse for Democrats. I don't feel sorry for them at all... they deserve everything that's coming to them.

You may dislike/hate all your opponents for what you think they are, but how this makes your side/position any better is a mystery worth solving.

 

also, what is this? Which so happily transforms into this?

 

Also, what did McCain's daughter do to start up this flamefest?

 

 

Yes humor is what many have left, just sad that with all the RINO's gone (as you say it), we just have thin-skinned basement dwellers now >_>

Kudos to Trump for continuing with his press conference, especially after what surfaced yesterday (you guys make Europe mornings a delight!)

 

And, what did he say about libel laws? Perhaps a 28th Amendment that puts death penalties on insulting the head of state?

Kudos to Trump for continuing with his press conference, especially after what surfaced yesterday (you guys make Europe mornings a delight!)

 

And, what did he say about libel laws? Perhaps a 28th Amendment that puts death penalties on insulting the head of state?

All fake news published by Buzzfeed, and propped up by CNN. Another lame attempt to slow the Trump Train down. Epic fail, and will probably result in CNN losing press credentials.

 

In 9 days Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and will begin reversing every illegal and unconstitutional action Barack Obama inflicted on our country. Nothing will stop this from happening, so either get used to it, or not... I don't really care.

The news was hilarious indeed, fake news is the new news and you can't really blame CNN for that one. Heck if you throw CNN out for that one, please have the guts to throw half the presspit out then, both sides have been pandering with overdramatization like it's normal.

 

But you can't deny the US-Russia relation didn't go from etchy to mellow but actuall to full on mancrush. Even if some foreighn power has dirt on Trump, it mostly slides of him like he is made of teflon. Doesn't stop people from manipulating the manipulator. Anyway enjoy the french economical model, EU newsoutlets have basically stopped reporting on whenever the french or a company have to repay illegal/discriminating government €€ support.

 

wait a moment, "illegal and unconstitutional"? You fellows had the Supreme Court on your side nearly the entire Obama administration and while being vocal and revising when necesairly, they didn't really stop Obama much.

 

 

wait a moment, "illegal and unconstitutional"? You fellows had the Supreme Court on your side nearly the entire Obama administration and while being vocal and revising when necesairly, they didn't really stop Obama much.

Oh yes they did... they shut down Obama's illegal recess appointments, his EPA overreach, his immigration executive order amnesty bullshit, and much more. I personally believe they killed Justice Antonin Scalia in an effort to change things up, but I wasn't in charge of investigating his death. I believe they did the same to Andrew Breitbart. Maybe someone should have took a closer look at what happened... but the Obama Justice Department was curiously not interested in this.

alot of stuff that got done cause nobody on the other side of the bench wanted to talk I imagine. Howmany of those were verdicts and howmany were (in)formal reviews? (actually curious).

 

 

aaah yes, not a single sniff of foulness on my side but the other side? Dear lord the other side! The sulfer pits of Satan are nothing to it!

alot of stuff that got done cause nobody on the other side of the bench wanted to talk I imagine. Howmany of those were verdicts and howmany were (in)formal reviews? (actually curious).

 

 

aaah yes, not a single sniff of foulness on my side but the other side? Dear lord the other side! The sulfer pits of Satan are nothing to it!

75% of Obama's legacy will be erased during Donald Trump's first week in office... they were all Executive Orders, and can be cancelled by a signature. He boasted about it today when he invited all the press to come watch him do it. The rest will take legislation, but it should all be done within the first 100 days. He can start the wall with a signature, but I'm sure he will need help from Congress to finish it. It's all about getting things done. Trump is all about results and will refuse to allow anything to get in the way. He will demonstrate how easy it is under the right leadership. He does that, and he's re-elected in 2020 with ease.

 

We must thank Harry Reid, and give him kudos for changing the Senate rules to neutralize the filibuster... we only need 51 votes in the Senate instead of 60, and it never would have been possible if it wasn't for the absolute moronic stupidity of "Dirty Harry" Reid.

All hail the God Emperor Trump.

All hail the God Emperor Trump.

God Emperor's don't take $1.00... that's one U.S. buck... for a yearly salary, and donate all profits from his foreign business to the U.S. Treasury. Turn it around and you would be correct... "All throw rotting food at God Emperor Obama".

 

All hail the God Emperor Trump.

God Emperor's don't take $1.00... that's one U.S. buck... for a yearly salary, and donate all profits from his foreign business to the U.S. Treasury. Turn it around and you would be correct... "All throw rotting food at God Emperor Obama".

 

I'm just here for the lulz.

 

 

All hail the God Emperor Trump.

God Emperor's don't take $1.00... that's one U.S. buck... for a yearly salary, and donate all profits from his foreign business to the U.S. Treasury. Turn it around and you would be correct... "All throw rotting food at God Emperor Obama".

 

I'm just here for the lulz.

 

 

You're right, the God Emperor would sacrifice his freedom to guide the Imperium and ensure safe travel in deep space.