Donald Trump

Donald Trump Supports a $10 Minimum Wage—Or Does He?

Trump contradicts himself three times while answering a simple question-then offers another contradiction to clarify.

|

Brian Kersey/UPI/Newscom

Donald Trump said this morning that he would support a $10 federal minimum wage—but don't tell him he said so.

During a press conference, the Republican nominee said he supports raising the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour, though he said he would leave states the authority to set their own minimum wages.

"The minimum wage has to go up," Trump said. "At least $10. It has to go up."

Trump said he would let states be in charge of setting their own wages, but then immediately offered a counter-argument by saying that lower minimum wages in other states puts high wage states, like New York, at a disadvantage. He also responded to a request for clarification about whether he meant that the federal minimum wage should be increased to $10 and hour by saying that, yes, he meant the "federal" mininum wage.

Like his positions on many policy issues, it can be difficult to nail down exactly what Trump thinks about the minimum wage. Over the course of his campaign has given conflicting responses on the topic, sometimes in the course of the same interview.

During an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday night, for example, Trump gave answers that seemed to be at odds with themselves, and with his previous opinions.

Here's how the exchange went down: O'Reilly pushed Trump to give a specific number for a minimum wage, arguing that "there has to be a minimum wage." Initially, Trump disagreed with that notion.

"There doesn't have to be," Trump said, before immediately contradicting himself by saying he would "leave it and raise it somewhat."

"You need to help people. I know it's not very Republican to say, but you need to help people," Trump said.

Pressed again by O'Reilly for a specific figure, the Trump said he would support a $10 federal minimum wage, and then said he would "let the states make the deal."

If you're willing to tilt your head and squint a little, it seems like Trump was saying that he would support a $10 minimum wage but would leave it up to the states to implement it. That might be giving him too much credit, though, considering that it would directly contradict his earlier statements on the subject (and considering that his grasp of federalism seems tenuous at best).

When O'Reilly tried to clarify that Trump supported a $10 federal minimum wage and allowing states to do what they wanted, Trump pushed back.

"No, you have me on the record saying the states are going to raise it higher than that," he said.

The interview was par for the course for Trump, who has shown for months that he has no clear position on the minimum wage.

Last August, Trump made headlines for saying, during an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, that a low minimum wage was a good thing for the country.

In November, at a Republican presidential primary debate, Trump argued that "we have to leave it the way it is," because a higher minimum wage would be bad for the economy.

"But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world," he said, when asked about support for a $15 minimum wage. "We just can't do it."

By May of this year, Trump's position had seemingly evolved when he told CNN he would be in favor of raising the federal minimum wage from the current level of $7.25 (29 states and Washington, D.C., already have minimum wages set above the federal floor).  

None of this is directly contradictory—it's possible that Trump believes the current $7.25 minimum wage is too low but also believes a $15 minimum wage is too high, for example.  But that's exactly why O'Reilly was asking him about it on Tuesday night, giving the GOP nominee a chance to clarify and substantiate his position on something that will certainly be a point of contention in the general election.

Instead, however, Trump just offered incomplete ideas and general platitudes, leaving voters with no idea what he actually supports.

Much of Trump's presidential campaign has been based around increasing employment—something he reiterated during Tuesday's appearance on O'Reilly, saying "somebody like me is going to bring jobs back" in the midst of his answer on the minimum wage.

A $10 per hour, minimum wage would likely have the opposite effect. Hiking the federal minimum wage to $10.10 could cost the economy between 500,000 and 1 million jobs, acocrding to a 2014 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, although CBO analysts said those theoretical losses could be mitigated by other consequences of a higher base wage. 

It's also worth noting that it wasn't all that long ago that supporting a $10 minimum wage was considered a progressive move.

President Barack Obama, in his 2014 State of the Union address, called for raising the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Two months later, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to approve a $10.10 minimum wage, to the cheers of progressive activists.

Now, just a little more than two years later, those same activists have left the idea of a $10.10 minimum wage in the rearview mirror as they've sped down the road towards a $15 minimum wage, or more.

At that rate, we'll be hearing calls for a $20 minimum wage by the time the 2018 midterms roll around. Who knows what Trump would think about that?

NEXT: Remaining Charges Against Freddie Gray Cops Dropped (UPDATED w/ Comment from State's Attorney)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is the Dem convention already over?

    1. Stay tuned right here on TRUMP TEEVEE, same station, same time, ALL THE TIME!

      1. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? All libertarians already hate Hillary, so there is no need to keep harping on how horrible she is. However, there us a big tard contingent among libertarians that is enamored with Trump.

        1. All libertarians already hate Hillary

          The trolls have a sad

        2. And look how much they bitch every time there’s an anti-Trump article.

          1. Because we’re Trump supporters, Ted? Come on.

        3. However, there us a big tard contingent among libertarians that is enamored with Trump.

          Lighting the John signal only 3 posts in?

          Note: John does not claim to be a libertarian.

          1. Maybe not, but John is the #1 guy you need to talk to in order to discern the magical inner workings of Trumps labyrinthine mind while it’s in the middle of a 9th Dimension Chess Game.

        4. Yeah, there’s that too. No regular here has any illusion that the Democrats are going to offer anything of interest to libertarians. Many people do believe that Republicans have something to offer libertarians. Which is true to the extent that there are a number of pretty libertarian Republicans.

    2. God, I hope so.

      It occurs to me that there is another factor that probably has something to do with the balance of coverage gap. Trump is constantly saying things that attract attention. It’s his whole strategy.
      Clinton’s strategy, on the other hand, seems to be to make as few public statements as possible and to distract as much attention from her actual person as possible, because they know she is an awful dreary person and her personality and extemporaneous speaking abilities won’t help.

      It would be nice if the Reason crew would pick some more substantive stories and really get into them rather than being distracted by every new shiny thing they see (which is often whatever Trump said today). But I think there is a rule that election coverage has to be vapid and annoying.

      1. It occurs to me that there is another factor that probably has something to do with the balance of coverage gap. Trump is constantly saying things that attract attention. It’s his whole strategy.

        Was just about to say this, myself. It’s not that reason is ignoring the DNC, it’s that Trump is deliberately saying things to draw attention away from it (i.e. the flap about Russia earlier today).

        Clinton’s strategy, on the other hand, seems to be to make as few public statements as possible and to distract as much attention from her actual person as possible, because they know she is an awful dreary person and her personality and extemporaneous speaking abilities won’t help.

        235 days without a press conference, and counting.

      2. Trump’s ability to grab cheap publicity shouldn’t be leading Reason writers by the nose from one story to the next.

        1. No. That’s what I was getting at in the last paragraph.

          I’m not one to complain a lot about it, but I do find myself skipping altogether an awful lot more of the posts on here than I used to.

        2. It’s starting to remind me of the Sarah Palin coverage.

          At the height of that, I saw lead stories on shows like Entertainment Tonight reporting on what Sarah Palin wasn’t going to do.

          She wasn’t going there, and she wasn’t doing that, she didn’t think this or that.

          When whatever someone doesn’t do is front page news, the news is whatever you want it to be.

          Donald is unsure about something? Donald contradicts something else he said?

          Donald wants to kill ISIS babies, hates Muslims, and sputters about the minimum wage?

          Meanwhile the Democrats are throwing an SJW fest on national television and have practically made socialism a plank in their platform. If we’re not going to focus on that today and tomorrow, then when?

          1. If we’re not going to focus on that today and tomorrow, then when?

            There’s plenty of time thoughtful, chin-stroking articles in the “now that Hillary is elected, what do we know about her and her plans” line.

            After the election.

            1. We have to elect her to know what’s in her?

              1. Hey, worked for Obama, amirite?

      3. It would be nice if the Reason crew would pick some more substantive stories and really get into them rather than being distracted by every new shiny thing they see (which is often whatever Trump said today).

        I suspect the quota to fill the blog leads to the excessive Trump stories because they are relatively easy to fire off quickly.

        The dead tree magazine version continues apace with the substantive stories (and they are edited too!).

        1. Yes, the magazine continues to be very good.

          Important to also remember that this here is a blog, which is where the cheap and easy stuff goes.

      4. There must be some interesting elections for other offices developing, or even in other countries.

    3. Does reason plan to ever charge Donald Trump rent for living inside their heads?

      1. Are you ever gonna start paying rent for being in everyone’s head and figuring out what they really mean and want?

        1. No. I expect them to pay me for the service of explaining the rational implications of their positions. I have explained that about 12 times. Yet, you still can’t seem to grasp it. The point is not that they believe the position that I ascribe to them. It is the opposite. They don’t believe in the position, despite the fact that their stated position rationally requires them to support it. Thus, perhaps there is a problem with their stated position.

          It is not hard.

          1. That’s what she said.

          2. [Sets hook, reels line in, gaffs John by the lower lips, holds him up, takes several pics, throws John back into the commentariat pool]

    4. Is the Dem convention already over?

      It was over months ago, baby.

  2. Nobody’s voting for Trump because they like the steadfastness of his principles or the depth of his wisdom. Come on now.

  3. I’m going to start to advocate a $500 an hour minimum wage. Over a 2,000 hour work-year, that’s $1 million a year. EVERYONE WILL BE RICH!

    1. Fucking heartless bastard. $150,000/hr min wage. We all deserve our own Mars colony.

    2. Any business that can’t afford to pay that shouldn’t be in business.

    3. I support your $500 an hour minimum wage but we need to phase it in over the next century because otherwise it will destroy jobs. Derp.

    4. I cante even! Cmon i dont see why we cant just make the CEOs of The Corporashuns that literally made profits of eleventy!!1billion dollars las year turn over the profits to the marginilized communities of color opreshun! Thats liek 16 millin per peerson!!

      1. Is this even sarcasm? It’s getting so hard to tell, these days.

  4. Listen, if we don’t get these price controls right, we could get some real economic problems.

    1. YUGE economic problems. Sad!

  5. Or, as I like to call it, a day with a y in it.

  6. Like his positions on many policy issues, it can be difficult to nail down exactly what Trump thinks about the minimum wage. Over the course of his campaign has given conflicting responses on the topic, sometimes in the course in the same interview.

    Ascribing thought to anything Trump says seems overly generous.

    1. Obligatory addendum that pierogis are just as incoherent as Trump only a million times worse.

      1. Just for that, I am voting for a pierogi.

        1. Pierogi aren’t qualified to run the country, but they do make the right people angry.

          1. Either you are for carbohydrates stuffed with carbohydrates, or you are for communism.

          2. I think a pierogi would do a better job than amy of the so-called candidates. Plus, a pierogi is more edible and smells better.

            1. Unfortunately, the only Pierogi-American in the race was Chris Christie, and he dropped out.

              1. I am not so convinced Christie has a delicious potato and onion center. I think it’s dough all the way to the center.

                1. I didn’t say he was a GOOD pierogi.

                  1. And there’s no way that gut doesn’t have at least SOME potatoes and onions in it, among many other things.

                    1. Mmmmm, bridge-gate email printouts pierogis.

  7. Hey, at least he didn’t say $15. Because fifteen dollar too beaucoup.

  8. “The minimum wage has to go up,” Trump said. “At least $10. It has to go up.”

    That’s “go up BY $10,” making it $17.25/hr.

    Why does Hillary hate the working poor?

  9. This is why Donald Trump isn’t nearly as scary as Hillary. He’s a weak Mussolini to Hillary’s weak Chavez.

    1. Or put more concretely, Hillary wants $12 per hour (and higher than that in major cities) and Trump wants a $10 per hour minimum wage.

      Both are wrong. But one position is clearly worse.

      1. What I meant was, his so-called plans are so nebulous and volatile that none will ever be implemented.

        1. I agree. Trump doesn’t have plans. He’s a pragmatic middle man, that made his living off of making deals. I’m unsure if that’s a positive or a negative.

          I suspect he’d triangulate much like Bill Clinton did.

          1. Bill Clinton plan — Wait for something to develop and when it looks good, jump out in front of it and take credit.

            I think that asshole Carville (that looks like the ass-faced kid on Preacher) called it the Third Way.

    2. I think Sanders is a better example of a weak Chavez.

      1. You’re right — Hillary is more like his successor, Maguro or whatever his name is — no ideas or her own, just the lust for power, and utterly incompetent at reality.


  10. Is the Dem convention already over?

    It was over before it began, as you very well know.

  11. “The minimum wage has to go up,” Trump said. “At least $10. It has to go up.”

    So, basically, all the presidential candidates are economic retards and we’re going to get screwed no matter what?

    Libertarian moment! Will someone please stop these libertarian moments before we all wind up serfs!?

  12. Other than the Muslim/tuffgai stuff, what does this dude say that appeals to self-described conservatives?

    1. Make Murica Great AGAIN, something, something…

    2. I thought he advocated lower taxes? At least corporate taxes.

      1. But no making widgets in China, so get ready to pay 5 grand for your next phone.

    3. “what does this dude say that appeals to self-described conservatives?”

      That he wants a $10 per hour minimum wage whereas Hillary wants a $12 per hour minimum wage. He’s Less Wrong.

  13. In the middle of the DNC Trump gives a press conference so he’ll stay in the news. I bet he was vague on the minimum wage to attract those pissed off Bernie supporters. Reason still doesn’t understand how Trump operates.

  14. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $13285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and applly the guide leaked on this web site.

    Browse this site.?. http://www.Note80.Com

  15. WHY does Reason keep posting stories about the person who draws more media attention and drives increased page views and comments, instead of scrupulously keeping a spreadsheet on the number of articles written about each candidate and the number of times their names are mentioned in each story, in order to ensure total fairness? WHY?!?

    1. They know which way the wind is blowing.

      1. With all the Bob Dylan fans that write for Reason, they should be able to fill in the blanks there.

        1. I thought that was only Old Man Gillespie?

          1. The wind blows under and through The Jacket and also gently caresses The Jacket’s leather undergarment counterpart.

        2. You don’t need a Weather Underground to know which way the bombs blow?

      2. The strong wind of Trump farming?

        1. +5 years since last famine

    2. Because they are communists. Duh.

      1. That’s the conclusion I came to, as well.

      2. I think “lazy” probably covers it. Nothing easier than repackaging the Twitter sensation of the hour, slopping a little personal reaction over it, and posting it.

    3. Because we demand MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! mOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP! MOAR TRUMP!

      1. Don’t forget MOAR LABELZ

      2. FUCK YEAH! I CAME HERE FOR TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP AND NONE OF YOU CUCKS WILL TAKE IT FROM ME.

        I’m sorry.

        1. Trump is the Reason staff’s clitoris.

          1. Reason staff’s what?

            Stop making up words.

    4. I think there’s a line we do have to draw here however: Writing a ton of articles about Trump in an election campaign where he basks in limelight? Totally fine, provided we focus on things like how his policy prescriptions are nonsense and constantly changing, challenges to arguments in regards to trade protectionism, etc.

      On the other hand, self-aggrandizing pats on the back for socially signalling your dislike of Trump? I.E. articles like ‘durr hurr, Trump’s logo is a penis and that’s representative of his general incompetence?’ or ‘Trump said mean things about women, I will not point out the hypocrisy in Lena Durham giving a speech about it followed by one by a serial sex offender’? I could stand for less of those.

      1. I’d actually like a higher standard where Trump and Clinton’s positions are compared against each other. That would actually seem more like journalism and less like tabloidism.

        1. That’s why you’re not in “the business”.

      2. provided we focus on things like how his policy prescriptions are nonsense and constantly changing, challenges to arguments in regards to trade protectionism, etc.

        This very article is about one of his constantly changing opinions, and the first comment is about “Why so much Trump?”

        I’ve noticed that when Reason does post an article about his policy opinions or positions, it’s quickly, “Well they aren’t that bad! BUT WHAT ABOUT HITLERY SHE’S SO MUCH WWWOOOORRRSSSEEE!!!!”

        So I don’t think that saves them, either.

        1. I’m not defending a kneejerk ‘but what about Clinton’ reaction to every article, and I’m sure as hell not defending whatever madness has infected SIV. I’m just saying that there’s a middle ground between Cytotoxic-esque ‘Trump is a fascist and everything Reason prints on him is justified’ and deranged “How dare you talk about Candidate Trump in Election season’. And it can be summed up as ‘Reason is producing subpar, poorly written content in regards to Trump that is often more reflective of the author than Trump, lacks insight into his actual campaign, and seems to fundamentally fail to understand what Trump’s appeal is or why voters would support him.’

    5. Paid. Shills.

  16. I came away from that O’Reilly interview thinking that he had said that he would raise the federal MW to $10 with the understanding that high cost of living states like NY or CA would implement higher local MW.

  17. Jesus, what a fucking mess.

  18. Well it’s better than a $15 minimum wage, I guess…

    Speaking of wages, I had a phone interview this afternoon with a potential employer and while it went well overall, it started out so awkwardly because of the “tell me about yourself” question. I hate that question and need to be better prepared for it.

    “Well, I’m a godless heathen who sometimes flirts with the idea of anarchy and I think taxes are theft and the government is evil but I do love marketing analytics!” Blech.

    1. “Tell me about yourself” is code for, “Say some things I like to hear.” If they’re interviewing multiple people, you want to drop something memorable in there, but that won’t discourage them from hiring you. When they’re talking over the candidates, you’ll be “the race car driver,” or “the guy who built a roller coaster in his backyard,” while all the other candidates will be mere market analysts.

      1. This. I have had good results from talking about hobbies that are unusual in my field and my success stories in them.

      2. “Say some things I like to hear.”

        Specifically, it means to say that you do something the interviewer either does or that he/she has always wanted to do. Cool things.

      3. Good advice. I bombed that question but I think I did good otherwise. I think I will get an in person interview any ways.

      4. I played up some minor celebrity interactions i’d had in previous jobs in order to get a second interview with my current employer.

        1. Well, are you gonna hold out on us? I wanna know what Gary Coleman said to you when you dropped off the pizza.

          1. Nothing. He just took the pizza, punched me in the dick, and slammed the door in my face.

            1. So he was punching up in more way than one.

              1. Too soon, all o’ youse.

    2. I always thought being on the receiving end sucked until I recently started having to give a few interviews. I can be a bit tongue-tied at the best of times but phone interviewing strange IT nerds in India just makes it worse.

    3. Just say you are a free spirit who enjoys in-depth research and have a healthy disrespect for bullies.

    4. Simple, a brief (2min max) overview of the main points on your resume, but start with something personal (I’m originally from…).

  19. Even if you think that the minimum wage is a good idea, there’s no way there should be a national one. We have too many regional economies. A minimum wage that makes sense in NYC would be disastrous in a small town economy. And just who do the Democrats think they’re gouging for the workers. It’s not the large corporations that are paying the minimum wage. It’s small mom and pop businesses that pay workers minimum wages.

    1. Then all the good-paying jobs in NYC will move to low-wage Mississippi, don’t you know.

  20. Ambivalence and confusion over a minimum wage hike are vastly superior to unity and certainty about a hike among Hillary and the Democrats.

    And I don’t know if you heard, but the Democrats are holding a convention this week.

    You have to look past a whole world of high profile Democrats saying stupid shit to find the anti-Trump angle today, don’t you?

    1. Democrats saying stupid shit? No! It can’t be true!

      1. And you might find this hard to believe, but a lot of the stupid shit they say is contradictory.

      2. Democrats saying stupid shit? No! It can’t be true!

        That’s what makes it news when it happens.

        Apparently, it rarely happens, though. Don’t hold your breath!

    2. No one dislikes the Democrat platform more than I, but that doesn’t mean giving Trump a pass. Anyone who supports a minimum wage shows his ignorance of job markets and basic economics. A GOP candidate obviously pulling a public policy out of his ass on the fly that will affect millions of employers and job seekers is noteworthy.

      1. He isn’t unique though-all the Rep candidates advocated a minimum wage. The question was just how low or high it should be. The only candidate opposed to the minimum wage would be Johnson (he is right?).

        1. It is important to remember that the actual minimum wage, at all times and in all places, regardless of what legislators deem it to legally be, is $0.

        2. It is important to remember that the actual minimum wage, at all times and in all places, regardless of what legislators deem it to legally be, is $0.

          1. No it’s not. Internships often require travel and dress codes with no pay. Effectively the minimum wage can be negative if there is sufficient value for the intern in just doing the work.

        3. Fuck, I hope so. But CNN puts a hysterical mother in front of him talking about how the free market left her son brain dead and Johnson might become as equivocal as Trump on the subject.

        4. The only candidate opposed to the minimum wage would be Johnson (he is right?).

          I think he supports them for bakeries, or something.

        5. well, according to IstandWith, yes.

      2. I’m not saying we should give Trump a pass.

        I’m saying that the Democrats are making a special effort to expose their ugly, statist, authoritarian, and socialist butts for the world to see–today and tomorrow. Why look past all that today to kick Trump’s butt?

        You can go after Trump any other day–and I’m sure they will. Why focus on Trump–today?

        Again, if Trump is uncertain and contradictory on the minimum wage, then he is head and shoulders above the Democrats–who are absolutely certain and unified in the belief that the minimum wage needs to go higher.

        1. I’m not going to deny being a little surprised at the lack of rapid fire posts on the DNC similar to what we saw from Cleveland last week.

          And the market doesn’t like uncertainty any more than it likes set in stone Democrat economic policy.

          1. I understand what you’re saying about uncertainty when it comes to things like taxes, fees, etc.

            When I’m doing my proformas, I’m always projecting the worst case scenario. When I see some uncertainty, I assume the worst. I’ve actually appeared in front of city councils and persuaded them to not go through free increases because of that. When I go to the bank, they’re not underwriting my projects from the perspective of what happens when everything goes as planned. They want to know what happens if it all goes to hell, and I go bust. What’s the worst case scenario if I default?

            That being said, I do not think it’s better when they write the worst case scenario into law.

            If $15 is the worst case scenario, and Hillary is in favor of it, then Donald Trump maybe being for it and maybe being against it is still better. The worst case scenario is still $15 an hour.

    3. We have to talk about Trump. All the media has said was that it was rainbows, unicorns, and puppy dog tears for everyone there.

      Most have were even touched by Bill Clinton.

  21. He’s saying a federal $10 minimum and the states can go beyond that if they choose. He may change his tune next week but what he said last night is pretty simple.

  22. Meanwhile, in other Trump news, he as everyone is aware called upon Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails. The Clinton team responded by saying that by encouraging the Russians to do so, Trump had taken the issue beyond politics and made it a matter of “National Security”. WTF?

    Dear Clinton campaign, I don’t think that is the answer you were looking for.

    Beyond admitting that the emails are a matter of national security, note they seem to share the assumption that the Russians actually have those emails. Wow.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/…..ity-issue/

    1. Tone deaf.

      Like the union spokesperson who came out to clarify that the cop wasn’t a racist because he was aiming for the harmless autistic dude sitting on the curb but missed.

    2. Whatever you do, John, don’t look for Dan Rather’s take on the matter. I made the mistake of glancing at it on facederp during my lunch break, but I think I managed to look away before my brain turned to pudding.

    3. Yeah, the angle the Dems are taking here is about as misguided as it can get. I bet Vlad’s laughing his ass off right now.

      1. Is “vlad” Trump’s new nickname?

        1. Putin, who I’m sure is having a good chuckle at the insanity of it all whether he has the emails or not.

          1. Garsh, Grinch, way to puke all over the joke.

            1. Sorry about that. I’m juggling this and being a contrarian asshole over at National Review so my mind’s all over the place.

    4. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but I really hope that someone releases those emails about Hillary’s “yoga routines”.

      1. SugarFree has already handled those.

        1. +1 Bikram Non-Euclidean Geometries

          1. You guys are going to summon an Elder God with that kind of dangerous verbiage.

            1. You think Hillary Clinton Herself didn’t slither out from behind the walls of the universe, to bide her time on unsuspecting Earth ’til the stars come right again?

            2. You think Hillary Clinton Herself didn’t slither out from behind the walls of the universe, to bide her time on unsuspecting Earth ’til the stars come right again?

              1. See? He agrees with himself. He has to be correct!

              2. Uh oh, The Elder Squirrels stir. Better smooth out all the corners in your house, as they can only enter this dimension through sharp angles.

                1. The squirrels work for Nyarlathotep, it is known.

    5. So a good thing her emails weren’t stored on a private email server somewhere out in upstate New York, right.

      1. Westchester isn’t upstate.

    6. He’s being snarky.

      Most candidates aren’t even capable of being snarky.

      And taking snark seriously makes the Democrats look old and out of it.

      He’s trolling them and obviously so–and it’s funny.

      He gave the Democrats a link to the Trolololololo guy, and they’re responding by bringing in experts to criticize the lyrics.

    7. The Clinton team responded by saying that by encouraging the Russians to do so, Trump had taken the issue beyond politics and made it a matter of “National Security”.

      WHy would releasing a bunch of emails about yoga and birthday parties be a breach of national security?

      Now, if Hillary had ever allowed classified info to be trafficked on her personal server, then it might be a matter of national security. But she told us that never happened, so who cares, right?

    8. Of course, because if Americans knew what Russian intelligence knew about…uh…that stuff…that would…uh…do something to…national security.

  23. “Do i contradict myself? Very well, i contradict myself. I am yuge, i contain multitudes.”

    1. This kind of barely coherent nonsense is exactly why we need a like button: so I can express my appreciation of nonsense without having to degrade it with a no-nonsense comment.

  24. Is this headline flat wrong: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/…..index.html

    Donald Trump encourages Russia to hack Hillary Clinton

    Did Trump call for Russia to hack Hillary’s email, or is he calling for them to find the 30,000 missing emails in those which were already hacked? I’ve read this headline more than once, but Trump’s bloviating aside, he seems to be making a snarky point about her already-hacked server.

    1. The emails were deleted. How would Russia hack Hillary to get deleted emails? Moreover, if they could, why wouldn’t the FBI already have done that?

      The court media will repeat any Hillary talking point no matter how stupid it is.

    2. “Is this headline flat wrong?”

      Does it support the DNC’s current talking points? If so, then how can it be wrong?

    3. Related, from Mollie Hemingway. My favorite part was when Katy Tur tried to ask him about it:

      Tur asked Trump whether he has ‘any qualms about asking a foreign government ? to hack into a system of anybody’s in this country’ after Trump said he hoped Russia would find more emails from Hillary Clinton or the DNC.

      ‘Hey, you know what gives me more pause, that a person in our government, crooked Hillary Clinton ? here’s what gives me more pause,’ Trump said, as Tur tried to ask follow-ups. ‘Be quiet, I know you want to, you know, save her. That a person in our government, Katy, would delete or get rid of 33,000 emails. That gives me a big problem. After she gets a subpoena. She gets subpoenaed, and she gets rid of 33,000 emails. That gives me a problem.’

      1. Katy walked into that one chin-first.

        And Trump points out yet another one of the absolutely no-questions-asked illegal things Hillary has done that she has gotten a complete pass on – deleting evidence that is under subpoena.

        1. And Tur now has to either refrain from throwing a fit and making a story about how Trump was mean to a journalist, something reporters love to do to Republicans or do so at the price of bringing the public’s attention to Trump’s point about Hillary deleting emails.

          He really does own these people.

      2. Come on Machine. It is not like journalists send their stories over to the DNC for comment and vetting before they even send them to their editors or anything. Trump is just being a big sexist meanie here.

        1. To quote the author of the piece:

          The reason saying “I know you want to save Hillary Clinton” stings is because everyone knows it’s true. It’s not just true of Clinton, it’s true of nearly every Democratic officeholder in the land. There are consequences to unfair coverage, and one of them is that it’s hard to take media freakouts seriously anymore.

          I wholeheartedly agree.

          1. And for the record, Katy Tur, totally WOULD in all CAPS

            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vtbj…..r42611.jpg

            1. Something… evil is going on with her nose and teeth. That’s one of the more disturbing ‘would’s i’ve seen on Hit’n’Run yet, even taking Crusty into account.

              1. I never really got past her body to pay much attention to her face. She is a bit of a but her face but not enough of one to bother me.

            2. Sexist. Wood.

    4. Speaking of emails, Instapundit brings up a blast from the past. When Sarah Palin’s email account from when she was governor was hacked and the emails made public, the NYT put the cache online and crowd sourced the review of them to their readers. Pailin was no longer in office when this happened nor was she running for office. But the NYT thought her being hacked was the greatest thing ever and used their readers to help ensure nothing important slipped by without being noticed.

      https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/239855/

      But Hillary’s and the DNC’s emails being hacked is totally different, because Hillary is a woman or something. .

      1. If Sarah wasn’t running, that might make it okay.

        In their fucked up world, undermining a woman like Hillary running for President is wrong.

        Did you know that Hillary is the first woman to ever be nominated for President by a major party?

        I bet you didn’t know women were smart enough to be nominated for President. Well, they are!

        And with any luck, Hillary will be the first woman to be impeached, too.

        1. If Sarah wasn’t running, that might make it okay.

          Actually, if she wasn’t running, I think that makes it even more not OK. Candidates should have less of an expectation of privacy, not more, than non-candidates.

          1. I agree!

            I was talking about “in their fucked up world”.

      2. Holy shit. I forgot all about that. Hillary really is subject to different standards.

    5. Yes, it’s pure trash. He never used the word hack or anything similar. It was clearly a joke at Hillary’s expense.

  25. Trump has managed to accelerate the process of flip-flopping to something positively transcendent. He takes all positions and none. I wish H.L. Mencken were around to see it.

  26. Trump doesn’t actually have positions on anything. He excels at free-association bloviating and that’s about it.

  27. I counted 4, not just 3, positions. “Leave it and raise it” is 2 positions, not 1. Amazing how anyone could contradict himself that quickly. But often transcribing speech leads to paradoxes like that, because people talk too fast.

  28. Where’s John? I need him to Trumpsplain what the Trump Trump is Trumping about.

  29. Holy shit that video link!!!

    Trying to follow that train of though from, “the minimum has to go up to $10″….to “Tex Cruz, said carpet-bomb them, not Donald.”

    How the fuck do you run a country, when you can’t get to the end of a single paragraph and be on the same subject?

    That clip gave me a headache trying to follow it for the 50 seconds it took to make that transition.

    1. How the fuck do you run a country, when you can’t get to the end of a single paragraph and be on the same subject?

      As well as a guy who struggles to get through a single sentence without needing a lie-down?

  30. First, I like this article: it actually dealt, rationally, with what Trump said. It dealt with a serious issue. It did not call him Hitler. Good job. Do more like this.

    Now, actual comment.

    I think the author hit the nail on the head regarding Trump’s opinion of the Minimum wage: he doesn’t have one. Or at least, his opinion doesn’t matter on this issue.

    My impression is that this is would be one of his “leave it to congress” issues. If congress never tries to send a minimum wage bill to his desk, he’s never going to seriously push for congress to make one. If congress puts a minimum wage increase on his desk, as long it doesn’t strike him as insane, he’ll sign off on it. If through some miracle a minimum wage reduction or removal bill went across his desk, he’d sign it as well as long as the political winds aren’t too against it.

    Basically, he’ll go along with whatever congress wants on the issue, within a seemingly fairly large tolerable measure. He doesn’t have an opinion on the issue himself. At least not one strongly held enough for him to fight on it.

  31. Minimum wage increases come with defined affects. Once enacted, 30 million Public workers get that raise, with a 15$ Min, a 7$ raise goes to ‘Public’ and Private’ doesn’t get it automatically but pays for it in taxation.
    30 million Public..
    70 million Private..
    Inversely, Private pay more taxation, so that about for every person getting a buck raise as a public employee, two private people are splitting the cost via paying taxes for the persons raise.
    There is some variance due to Public employees paying additional taxes and it isn’t a exact 2 for one ration.. but the model of Min Wage goes down to the line of Dem based Public workers gaining a raise which they then pay a portion back for the privilege of the raise and the greater amount of jobs are only punished as a result.

    How much can people be taxed before it becomes a detriment to expansion of peoples ability to improve themselves.. well.. obviously most Americans are already not in that position, before a Min Wage increase, most will not but, be in the same position after a min wage increase.

  32. But the government wins no matter what in a Min wage Increase.
    Except………
    Revenues being collected are not showing efficacy..
    To say.. when jobs pay stinks, revenues collected stinks, largely because so many jobs pay is so stinky, credits are paid back to the slob working for ‘double’ stinky pay.
    We get 2.5% greater GDP, we don’t get anywhere near a mirror of revenues collected in taxation.

    The government is creating wage controls for its own benefit at a much quicker rate than the benefit of the citizens. And as recent studies shown in the Min wage increased already, job growth is slower inside the ring of ‘min wage’ actual city, tan outside the city boundary, in the same State and county… businesses hire more slowly inside the ‘ring’/City limits.
    We can expand this model everywhere, businesses are PRIVATE, and will hire more slowly, but their employees will pay more per person versus their Public job person, which at one time in American history was designed to be a support, social benefit, for private enterprise.
    It looks like the roles are now reversed and private enterprise people pay’ed, are servants to Public workers.

  33. Who cares?
    If he removes all of the “undocumented workers” from the work-force, then we can have a realistic discussion on just where the Minimum Wage should be set, if at all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.