No, its not evidenceIts evidence when it happens like 3 hours after she releases numbers Trump doesn't like
Last edited:
No, its not evidenceIts evidence when it happens like 3 hours after she releases numbers Trump doesn't like
Keep dreamingIt's just too bad that natural causes may take out the head clown
Hey guys! Realistically, how long do you think this ratings bump will last?
I'm not sure what were arguing about here. No offense, but it sounds like we're at the water cooler discussing someone's firing.Yes revisions happen, but let’s not pretend this is some Biden-era anomaly. The BLS has been revising numbers under every administration because that’s literally how statistical sampling works. Remember the 2019 benchmark revision? Trump’s “greatest economy ever” quietly lost 500,000 jobs on paper overnight. Funny how nobody in MAGA land had a problem with the BLS then.
If you actually read the CNBC piece, the kicker is in their own words: “Most of the time span for the report came before Trump took office, indicating the jobs picture was deteriorating before he began levying tariffs.” Translation: the slowdown was already baked in, long before Biden even announced he was running.
So if revisions discredit Biden’s economy, they also blow a hole straight through Trump’s “booming” one. You don’t get to cherry-pick which revisions count.
Firing the BLS Commissioner after a bad jobs report and downward revisions. That’s not “protecting data integrity,” that’s shooting the ref because you don’t like the score. Then hiring a lackey to do your bidding, how authoritarian, at least thein charge is doing something right.
That would be two Presidents in a row. That would be very bad luck for our country.It's just too bad that natural causes may take out the head clown.
My point is that the SEC did not threaten them or launch frivolous investigations into individual companies. And Biden, Bush, Clinton or Obama or any other president did not tell the SEC (or any other regulator) to threaten them for not towing the line of the government. FCC chair Carr basically did. And Trump continues to try and intimidate the ABC, threatening them with more frivolous legal action.Individual companies are free to do whatever they want. I'm not sure your point here.
Did you ever hear of the GDPR? That'a a European internet privacy law that threatens large financial penalties for companies that mishandle personal data. It is something any company with an international footprint cares about. Same with European ESG laws. Which is why SEC was looking at that. Now, as we all know, nothing came of this. So, there is a big difference between this and what Nextstar is doing. The FCC is using unspoken threats that are impossible for a company to appeal to a court to defend. It is one thing for the FCC director to say we'll do it "the easy way, or the hard way..." That is a threat, considering they have business in front of the FCC. Have you ever heard an FCC chair say anything remotely like this? Or have you ever seen a company move as quickly as Nextstar (and ABC) did after Carr's threat was made public? It was a matter of hours. That, my friend, looks like a smoking gun to me.As long as I can remember, Europe has had more and different regulations. U.S. based corporations are quite adept at complying with local regulations without mandating compliance across the entire enterprise.
Gensler might have thought this would help standardize practices across North America and Europe, but that is a political judgement. The SEC has no mandate to require or even encourage ESG in the U.S. It is an implied threat that is no different than what some people say Nextstar is responding to with the current Administration.
The problem with your analysis is that you want to ignore the deemphasis in ESG since Gensler's departure. Now I would admit Gensler's departure is not the only reason for the change in Corporate mood over ESG. However, if companies went to court to fight the SEC's climate reporting initiative that is the definition of regulatory pressure resolved by the very definition of conflict. Why go to court if it was merely suggestive guidance?
Two things: First, the Nextstar merger was going to be a heavy lift, since it would give them control of more than 40% of the local TV stations. I don't think I said the merger was in trouble per se, but doing things that pleases Trump sure helps grease the wheel. Look at what happened with CBS? The settle Trump's ridiculous lawsuit (which they almost for sure would have won) and took Colbert off the air. And, lo and behold, the FCC swiftly approved the deal with Skydance.Who said the Nextstar merger was in regulatory trouble? That's liberal conjecture to fit a narrative around KImmel. I personally doubt that it is or ever was. A pending merger doesn't explain Sinclair's action. Sinclair is just exercising its rights of ownership. Pretty much like your BlackRock example.
The narrative of Operation Choke Point has been told by the gun industry. There were legit reasons for the investigation, and there was strong evidence of money laundering and fraud. The gun industry claims it was an over-reach. And, maybe in some cases it was. But...and here is the big thing: Did Obama tell them to do this? There is no evidence that Obama ever influenced this investigation. Trump, on the other hand, is demanding his AG prosecute his political enemies. Hence, James Comey being indicted yesterday. Is there a chance of a conviction? Doubtful. It'll likely be a repeat of the Durham Inquiry, where they charged Michael Sussmann with making false statements, but was promptly acquitted by a jury. It is just political theatre...In closing, as I said people tend to defend inappropriate government intervention when it suits their politics. It can be rationalized. The SEC example was only just one. Facebook said it was "asked" to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Obama and Biden Administrations encouraged the debanking of politically unpopular industries.
There is always subtle political pressure applied by many regulatory agencies. The heads of these agencies tend to be very political and that's how they get appointed here in the U.S.
Operation Choke Point - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Vegas always is high beta relative to the U.S economy and even the global economy to some extent. You would expect a big impact from inevitable recessions. The Vegas economy is extremely reliant on highly discretionary spending. No one needs to shoot dice or bet black.As I said. It's information gathered from businesses reporting in. When they don't, delay, fudge things(Vegas is doing that now by laying off just under reportage thresholds and just not giving shifts) then numbers need to be adjusted to reflect reality.
I'm not sure why. Vance is a more articulate version of MAGA.This is where Lefties are at now, they're actually hoping Trump has a quick death
I cherry-picked this because this is an example of arguing with everything almost rendering a discussion incoherent.The second thing: Sinclair is a very right-wing leaning company. They are the ones who were forcing their news stations to carry the same editorial comment, regardless of market, and had Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn provide must-run editorials. If any organization was going to do what the Trump administration wants, it would be them.
Operation Choke Point targeted several industries. Does it make a big difference if AG Eric Holder was behind it instead of President Obama? I think they were very close professionally and personally.The narrative of Operation Choke Point has been told by the gun industry. There were legit reasons for the investigation, and there was strong evidence of money laundering and fraud. The gun industry claims it was an over-reach. And, maybe in some cases it was. But...and here is the big thing: Did Obama tell them to do this?
You are correct, the media (with the exception of public broadcasters) has always had political leanings. From the New York Post to the Globe and Mail (and the Toronto "Red" Star), they've supported political ideologies. I don't really have an issue with that...As long as they are covering the news factually.I cherry-picked this because this is an example of arguing with everything almost rendering a discussion incoherent.
Of course, Sinclair owns their TV stations they can decide editorial content. They simply support Trump. Same as BlackRock can support ESG/DEI initiatives. In our 250 year history, newspapers, radio stations and TV stations have had political biases influenced by their ownership.
This could be maddening for some ideologues on both sides. Wealthy Individuals and corporations can support whoever and whatever they want.
Operation Choke Point targeted several industries. Does it make a big difference if AG Eric Holder was behind it instead of President Obama? I think they were very close professionally and personally.
I have a problem with Trump directing prosecutions. I also have a problem with political prosecutors campaigning on targeting certain people with out identifying a specific crime. All that I said is that there will be investigations into every aspect of a person.And, while Holder and Obama might be close, there has never been an allegation of Obama telling Holder who to target for prosecution.
Then how about you not say that then...Maybe not you specifically.
So why did some industry groups have to take the SEC to court over SEC climate initiatives?One thing to consider, with BlackRock. They are an investment company. They are the 800 LBS gorilla. When they started talking about ESG being important, MANY big companies embraced it with the hope BlackRock would buy their stock. It started a trend, and as I said, companies with strong ESG plans/goals/practices are usually VERY well-run organizations.
Why? You seem awfully happy to lump all the lefties together. Why should you expect special treatment?Then how about you not say that then...
First, I will say that the ESG regulations the SEC were considering were onerous. Some of the things they proposed were very difficult to quantify or report. Especially when it came to the environmental impact. That being said, if you look at the majority of organizations who were vehemently opposed, it might not shock you to discover that many of them were oil and gas or other resource related businesses. The same groups who have effectively lobbied to gut environmental oversight and deny climate change, even though Exxon scientists knew about it 40 years ago....So why did some industry groups have to take the SEC to court over SEC climate initiatives?
I'm sorry. It's like some of us understand the nature of political conflict. And some of you are too idealistic to accept it or even acknowledge it exists from all political perspectives.
Don't worry a future progressive SEC Head will try to impose a social agenda on U.S. financial institutions and corporations.
PS- U.S. Government overreach and companies fighting back in court are normal. In this discussion, IF the FCC Head puts direct pressure to keep Kimmel off the air the FCC will likely be dragged into court. If not by Disney, Kimmel backed by others.
Ehhhh, local TV stations are legacy media and suffering the same way as all legacy media. Business people know that consolidation and scale are the only way to keep local television somewhat healthy. The pro-business Trump Administration would inevitably respect that. The former Biden Administration less so.First, I will say that the ESG regulations the SEC were considering were onerous. Some of the things they proposed were very difficult to quantify or report. Especially when it came to the environmental impact. That being said, if you look at the majority of organizations who were vehemently opposed, it might not shock you to discover that many of them were oil and gas or other resource related businesses. The same groups who have effectively lobbied to gut environmental oversight and deny climate change, even though Exxon scientists knew about it 40 years ago....
As for Carr....he did not put direct pressure. But, if you cannot say his comments were a threat....I don't know how we can continue this conversation. I mean, he might have not meant it literally, but he did celebrate when ABC/Newstar took action...within three hours of those comments being reported. And, it isn't like he tried to walk them back. So, yes, if he did try to do something officially, then ABC could have taken him to court. If you know anything about how organized crime works, they make subtle threats, not outright ones. And, while ABC might have been insulated from that, Newstar is trying to persuade the FCC into letting it gain a bigger foothold across the US. Kowtowing to Carr/Trump might show they have no balls, but at the same time, it probably greases the wheels for their FCC approval.
Cause it's the correct thing to doWhy?
I never use the term lefties only leftists...And they consider it a badge of merit. The hive loves to be rewarded.You seem awfully happy to lump all the lefties together. Why should you expect special treatment?
Vegas is the most public example. It's also a very good prediction of the economy. You said it yourself. People don't have money, or are scared to go spend it.Vegas always is high beta relative to the U.S economy and even the global economy to some extent. You would expect a big impact from inevitable recessions. The Vegas economy is extremely reliant on highly discretionary spending. No one needs to shoot dice or bet black.
Who doesn't love being served drinks by some Ukrainian hotty while playing Blackjack? I love it, but I don't require it.
I also said recessions are part of a normal business cycle not an anomaly.Vegas is the most public example. It's also a very good prediction of the economy. You said it yourself. People don't have money, or are scared to go spend it.