Anouleth

There's also the possibility that Clinton gets indicted over the email scandal, which I don't think is very likely but could still happen.

Yeah but multiple other people in this topic have said that Menmus can recruit her by talking to her. I don't really care that much either way but I'd like to have a straight answer because it's not clear whether this is a bug or not.

I can't recruit Cattleya by talking to her with Menmus in Chapter 2. She still joins at the end of the chapter but it's quite annoying to have an enemy Myrmidon running around that I can't do anything about.

New York is also Trump's home turf. New York isn't a particularly conventional Democrat stronghold; I can see New Yorkers being willing to side with Trump in the same way that Boris Johnson enjoys high popularity among Londoners (despite London leaning towards Labour in general elections). (I'm aware that Hillary Clinton was Senator for New York but she's not really seen as a "native" in the same way as Trump.)

I agree that reducing the various loopholes and deductions in the tax code would be desirable (with maybe leaving in the charitable donation exception), but I would like to see it be at least somewhat progressive. Also even according to a right-wing author that likes the tax plan overall, it's not really flat (since the big deductions for health insurance and mortgages are still in there), it will benefit the rich more than the poor, and it will cost billions. Relying on public opinion to punish private businesses for discriminating is as effective as relying on public opinion to punish politicians for governing badly. Sometimes discriminatory practices become publicized and customers vote with their feet in a way that corrects discrimination. Other times, the public aren't informed or don't care. And sometimes the public is misinformed and will punish the wrong business! A restaurant is a good example of when it's easy to discriminate against a business whose practices you disapprove of; eating out is a luxury and a social activity meaning it can be used to signal, restaurant-goers have a lot of choice and flexibility, and restaurants rely mainly on their reputation and image to do well. It's a lot rarer that consumers will punish a bank or a chemical manufacturer. Secondly while I appreciate the right of businesses to discriminate, I think there's also a danger when businesses collude in order to discriminate (for example as businesses in the Jim Crow South colluded to discriminate against blacks). It's one thing for a business to refuse to serve you when you can go elsewhere, but if many businesses refuse to serve or hire you, it's quite another thing.

I personally blame the Lords Appellant. Basically everything bad that happened after 1400 was probably their fault.

Generally when jobs are lost, that results in higher unemployment; and higher unemployment always disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. While I think the minimum wage is a good thing I really don't think that the possibility of minimum-wage workers becoming unemployed is something that can just be casually dismissed. I think that $15 is way too high, for instance. I think the best thing to do would be to make it $10, chain it to core inflation, and come back in five years and see if it's safe to raise it again.

I don't think anyone really argues that higher minimum wages would cause prices to rise except indirectly. If stores could raise their prices and get more revenue, they would, regardless of how much they pay their employees; forcing them to pay their employees more doesn't add any extra incentive to raising prices. Rather, the argument is that a higher minimum wage is a disincentive to hiring new workers and might encourage businesses to get rid of some of their minimum wage workers. It might also cause small businesses that are barely profitable to go under. This argument is extremely sound. It's pretty basic in economics that if you force people to pay more for something (in this case labour) they will buy less of it. The only problem is that it's hard to find evidence for it actually working that way in the real world and in fact there is some evidence that seems to show that it has little or no effect on employment, in defiance of what seems to be fairly basic economics.

This is nothing new; threatening to pack the Supreme Court has been standard tactics since FDR. And Bernie Sanders has committed to nominating Justices that would overturn Citizens United.

Rule number one of debating: answer the question you want to answer and not the question you were asked.

Firstly the buffs to trainees, while well-meaning, are kind of pissing in the wind when you also buff enemy stats. Ross was already in danger of getting doubled early, and now he does get doubled. Amelia's +1 speed is not going to make a difference when by the time you get her, enemies have gotten between 2 and 3 extra speed from their increased speed growths. Enemy stats have probably been buffed too much, and too blindly. Sacred Stones has never had a problem with human class scaling, as well it shouldn't since it literally uses identical growth/base data to FE7. The problem is mainly with monsters and their lower bases, vulnerability to S Rank weapons, and overuse of weighty Steel weaponry. I feel like while nerfing everyone else good, you forgot to nerf Cormag. No addressing the really terrible weapon rank dickings that some classes get? I speak, naturally, of E Swords for Falcos, E Bows for Warriors, E staves for Druid and Summoner, and E weapon ranks for Knight->General. Other than that, looks good.

Skype is awful anyway get on my level

I think they are talking about the translation of the original FE3.

Surely it should be more like "I'll cut his throat"?