Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Well, they found a way to pay tax refunds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 29 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Well, they found a way to pay tax refunds. I'm reading in various places this is illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 The TSA has to be a growing concern regarding the shutdown. Already seeing some rumblings about this and they'll only get louder as time goes on. If those people aren't getting paid you gotta figure it's only a matter of time before it seriously disrupts air travel, and that would have ramifications across every industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Re: Biden. Should have challenged Clinton and maybe we wouldn't be in this Trumpian mess to begin with. Missed your chance, bro. I'm firmly in the 'new blood' category. These geriatrics need to take their politics to the golf course where they belong and pass the torch to the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, Mexal said: I'm reading in various places this is illegal? Yeah, if it is, who is going to oppose it? Political PR deathwish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 It turns out there is a thing called involuntary unemployment, even if Casey Mulligan and his posse at the U. of Chicago disagree. And the so called "skills gap" was largely a bunch of CEO and elitist horseshit, for the most part. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/7/18166951/skills-gap-modestino-shoag-ballance Quote Five or six years ago, everyone from the US Chamber of Commerce to the Obama White House was talking about a “skills gap. Quote Now along comes a new paper from Alicia Sasser Modestino, Daniel Shoag, and Joshua Ballance presented this week at the American Economics Association’s annual conference that shows the skeptics were right all along — employers responded to high unemployment by making their job descriptions more stringent. When unemployment went down thanks to the demand-side recovery, suddenly employers got more relaxed again. Quote As this chart shows, the education and experience qualifications employers were looking for got steadily higher as the unemployment rate rose during the Great Recession. Superficially one could interpret this as a “skills gap” — people couldn’t find work because they simply lacked the credential needed to work in the modern economy. Except as the unemployment rate started to fall, so did employers skill needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Maithanet said: I think Bernie is a lot less likely to run that Biden just because Biden's chances of winning the nomination are so much better. I wouldn't say "much" better, but yeah certainly better. I expect both of them to taper off as the primaries approach, if they run. The party needs excitement, and they're both - in their own ways - the antithesis of excitement. My gripe is they'd just be clogging the field, especially in terms of early money. 3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Has Obama come out and said he supports a Biden run? I really can’t recall him ever doing so. He'd never do that, in his capacity as the Last Actual President. 57 minutes ago, S John said: Re: Biden. Should have challenged Clinton and maybe we wouldn't be in this Trumpian mess to begin with. Missed your chance, bro. He had a lot of chances (1988, 2008). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 I don't think they've decided, but if the major news entities decide to give Trump's partisan speech live coverage for free during prime time (when they would not do that for Obama in 2014), I suspect strongly that we're not going to see the end of Trump any time soon. The reasoning here is that this would be one of the strongest signals that news organizations will always favor ratings over respectability and bias - and that ultimately heavily favors Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 And CBS has decided. Fuck you, CBS. https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1082412103166775299 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: The reasoning here is that this would be one of the strongest signals that news organizations will always favor ratings over respectability and bias I think you're grossly overestimating the impact of one speech, but that reasoning is basically fact. It's what I teach undergrads at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 14 minutes ago, DMC said: I think you're grossly overestimating the impact of one speech, but that reasoning is basically fact. It's what I teach undergrads at least. I'm not saying that the speech will have particularly any impact itself. I'm saying that prior to 2016, news organizations did appear to have a line they wouldn't cross when it came to pure partisan behavior by a POTUS (they denied Obama's talk on immigration in 2014 for this reason). Now, they appear to have completely crossed that line. And if they do it here, and they get ratings (which they likely will), they'll do it more. And Trump will probably do it more as well, because it'd be stupid if they denied him after allowing it the first time. The good news is that network watching is down as a whole, I guess. The bad news is that the media is becoming more and more complicit in Trump's success. ETA: more history about the 2014 address here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I'm saying that prior to 2016, news organizations did appear to have a line they wouldn't cross when it came to pure partisan behavior by a POTUS (they denied Obama's talk on immigration in 2014 for this reason). Now, they appear to have completely crossed that line. I know nothing about this line networks had. Obama didn't formally request time for that 2014 speech. Granted, it was because the administration thought networks would be reluctant to give it, but I can't think of any precedent where the broadcast networks refused to air an oval office address. And why were the networks reluctant to grant the time? "Partisanship" was given as an excuse, perhaps, but it was plainly because the networks were planning on premiering shows that particular night: Quote The executives also have to consider what is already scheduled to air. Thursday is a pivotal night for broadcasters and advertisers, and all the big networks have splashy new shows airing at 8 p.m. (as opposed to repeats). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, S John said: Re: Biden. Should have challenged Clinton and maybe we wouldn't be in this Trumpian mess to begin with. Missed your chance, bro. I'm firmly in the 'new blood' category. These geriatrics need to take their politics to the golf course where they belong and pass the torch to the next generation. My thoughts exactly. Also, the otter era is back, baby! 31 minutes ago, DMC said: I think you're grossly overestimating the impact of one speech, but that reasoning is basically fact. It's what I teach undergrads at least. I expect this speech to be some dark propaganda though. Do not expect anything remotely uplifting, as you well know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Well yeah, fuck CBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 ABC and NBC are also carrying it. Bah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Booooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 You people are fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: The reasoning here is that this would be one of the strongest signals that news organizations will always favor ratings over respectability and bias - and that ultimately heavily favors Trump. Wasn't this conclusively proven in 2016? They made it very clear that they don't like Trump, but this didn't keep them from pouncing on every scrap of information about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: My thoughts exactly. Also, the otter era is back, baby! It was time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Is it true what I hear about AOC being known as ‘Sandy’ back when she was bartending?!!?!??!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.