***Official Political Discussion Thread***

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.b44cf296c5eb

Another largely overlooked point about coal jobs is that there just aren't that many of them relative to other industries. There are various estimates of coal-sector employment, but according to the Census Bureau's County Business Patterns program, which allows for detailed comparisons with many other industries, the coal industry employed 76,572 people in 2014, the latest year for which data is available.

That number includes not just miners but also office workers, sales staff and all of the other individuals who work at coal-mining companies.

Although 76,000 might seem like a large number, consider that similar numbers of people are employed by, say, the bowling (69,088) and skiing (75,036) industries. Other dwindling industries, such as travel agencies (99,888 people), employ considerably more. Used-car dealerships provide 138,000 jobs. Theme parks provide nearly 144,000. Carwash employment tops 150,000.
1000
 
They deserve it, after making through the great recession


Not like Obama had to save Chrysler like he did the damn banking industry and in turn the entire US economy


Not like people that worship da Hemi should thank da evil Kenyesian for saving Dodge.
Well if Obummer wasn't too busy playing golf then maybe he could have prevented 9/11, da war and da recession

If he wasn't busy being a community organizing secret muslim spying golfer he could've stopped the war in Serbia, Saddam gassing his people, the Rwandan genocide, and Hitler's invasion of Europe.

The worst president ever.
 
It's too early to say that it's paying off when the moves just started happening. Give it a year to see what happens with their sales or how the company's health actually looks like. The article is speculation at best.

Perhaps the auto industry will just be the same as it was today in a year or two instead of the doom and gloom forecast. Perhaps Fiat/Chrysler doesn't do as well as everyone hoped. We really don't know.
 
It's too early to say that it's paying off when the moves just started happening. Give it a year to see what happens with their sales or how the company's health actually looks like. The article is speculation at best.

speculation? :lol

guess u forgot to realize that da auto sector had its highest selling year ever just last year due to low oil prices and robust Truck/SUV sales. ( this year its going less gangbusters in comparison)

FCA's strongest suit is trucks/SUV and its single handledly saved Fiat from its crappy sales back at da EU due to a crappy economy at home.

now that da cafe standards are thankfully a non issue, companies can make what da customers want.
 
[h1]A report that analyzed every minimum-wage hike since 1938 should put a bunch of nonsense ideas to rest[/h1]
"Raising minimum wage risky," the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader tersely warned.

"Raising minimum wage hurts low-skill workers," the Detroit News bluntly declared.

"Even left-leaning economists say it's a gamble," Vox solemnly cautioned. Nonsense.

We have been raising the minimum wage for 78 years, and as a new study clearly reveals, 78 years of minimum-wage hikes have produced zero evidence of the "job-killing" consequences these headline writers want us to fear.
In those industries most affected by the minimum wage, employment increases were even more common: 73% of the time in the retail sector, 82% in low-wage leisure and hospitality.

"These basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels," the authors write.

In fact, if anything, the data suggest that increases in the federal minimum appeared to encourage job growth and hiring.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that there's no limit to how high we can raise the minimum wage. But minimum-wage opponents are not haggling over a number. They are not making a nuanced argument that the minimum wage might be bad for some people if it's too high or phased in too fast or if the economy is too weak to absorb the change.

No, their core claim is that the minimum wage always hurts the whole economy — that it will always reduce growth— that it is always a sure-fire "job-killer."

For decades, our minimum-wage debate has been dominated by ideology — the zero-sum claim that if wages go up, employment must inevitably go down — leading even many progressives to believe that the minimum wage is at best a necessary trade-off between fairness and growth.

But 78 years of evidence demonstrates that this old trickle-down model just isn't true. On the contrary: When workers have more money, businesses have more customers and hire more workers. That is the virtuous cycle that has always described the way market economies actually work.
http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-effect-on-jobs-2016-5
 
Since we're talking about the auto industry:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/27/news/economy/santander-auto-loans/ (santander only checked 8% of auto loans applicants' actual incomes)

and this

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-fewer-subprime-auto-borrowers-pay-off-early

Why am I pointing this out?

Santander was the partner in Uber's program that let you buy a car if you wanted to rideshare but didn't have a car. Considering everything we know about the revenues Uber drivers make, we - I - could expect them to go bankrupt before being able to pay back the totality of their car loan.

What I'm wondering is what the share of the car buying market subprime buyers represent, and whether there is reason to worry if car dealers end up with an excess in used cars (due to repo), and as a result, hold off on new orders.

And what's the justification for Ford laying off 20k people again?
 
speculation?
laugh.gif


guess u forgot to realize that da auto sector had its highest selling year ever just last year due to low oil prices and robust Truck/SUV sales. ( this year its going less gangbusters in comparison)

FCA's strongest suit is trucks/SUV and its single handledly saved Fiat from its crappy sales back at da EU due to a crappy economy at home.

now that da cafe standards are thankfully a non issue, companies can make what da customers want.
Guess you forgot that you couldn't even predict O'Reilly getting fired. Sad. Stay in your lane rookie.
 
Last edited:
I blocked the gust a loooooooong time ago, and it improved the quality of this thread for me bigly. It's like being able to close the door on a child copying words you say and making faces. Sure you could still speak to other adults even with the child there in the background, but the conversation is better without it.

I'll still unblock things he has to say for the most part outside of here though. But the last page had me rolling. Literally just the block list message and wind gifs :lol
 
Last edited:
https://apnews.com/749ff6ea249942d2...cial-counsel's-Trump-probe-adds-Manafort-case
 
The Associated Press has learned that the special counsel running the U.S. investigation into possible ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia's government has assumed oversight of an ongoing investigation involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller may also expand to look into the roles of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

The Justice Department's criminal investigation into Manafort, who was forced to resign in August amid questions over his past business dealings in Ukraine, predated the election and the counterintelligence probe investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Donald Trump.

The move to consolidate the matters indicates that Mueller is assuming a broad mandate in his new role.
 
Last edited:
@AP: BREAKING: Special counsel's Trump campaign investigation includes Manafort case, may expand to include Attorney General Sessions.

Sessions in the crosshairs now? It's lit 8o

*didn't see Columbia post the same thing at the same time :lol
 
Last edited:
Newsman Chuck:We now go to Doug who is outside braving this storm. Doug! what's it going on with the storm

2453494


Weatherman Doug: It's bad Chuck, it is a Category 5 Buffoonery Storm, blowing in ignorance from the east.

Chuck: Woah Doug, can you tell us what it is like out there

Doug: Well Chuck, the winds are fierce and whirling, and with it has come lack of reading comprehension, ignorant statements, and deflections. Its is a mess out here

Chuck: Anything else.

Doug: Yeah, there is Adobo in the air, it is hailing burnt Dipset albums, the seas are swelling and Jewelry store IOUs are washing up on shore. I haven't seen destruction like this since Sandy. I saw an albatross flying around fighting the wind. I asked what it was doing out here, and it told me it was looking for Susan Rice

Chuck: What do you advise people do.

Doug: People should be advised to seek shelter at their nearest library or university. Any place of learning and gaining knowledge seems immune to the winds. If you can't get to a library, get get to a computer opened to Google. Buffoonery winds will not go near it.

Chuck: Thanks Dough, as soon as you can get to safety

Dough: Don't worry about be Chuck, I copped the new Hemi. The world may be going to **** , but my fragile sense superiority is secure for now. That's all that matters

Chuck: Good for you Papi.......Now we go to Dave with the traffic report. Dave, how dem passing lanes lookin.........................
 
Last edited:

Speaking of Fox, it's good to see their standard of fair and balanced reporting is still as high as ever :


bout that reporting...

Trump press coverage 'sets new standard' for negativity: Study
A Harvard study found that 80 percent of Trump coverage was negative during his first 100 days in office.
Trump's high point with the media was after the Syria strike; the low point came during an unsuccessful effort to overturn Obamacare.
Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Fri, 19 May '17 | 11:14 AM ET
CNBC.com
PLAY VIDEO
Trump's sets new record for negativity when it comes to media coverage, a new study says
President Donald Trump's early days in office were subjected to almost universally negative news coverage, a Harvard study has found.
The Trump presidency is "setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president," according to the report from Thomas E. Patterson, professor of government and the press at the Harvard Kennedy School and Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
The study looked at Trump's first 100 days and examined coverage in the print editions of The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, as well as broadcast outlets CNN, CBS, Fox News and CNBC parent NBC, and European news outlets the Financial Times, BBC and ARD in Germany.

Of the total news stories examined, 41 percent focused on Trump, which was triple the coverage for previous presidents for the same period
And of that group, the tone was resoundingly negative — 80 percent of all stories, to be exact. That would be just shy of double the first 100 days of Barack Obama and significantly more than George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Trump frequently has criticized his coverage, stating this week that "no politician in history" has been treated worse.
View Related Chart
Sources: Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Mediated President (2006), p. 37 for Clinton and Bush; Center for Media & Public Affairs for Obama; Media Tenor for Trump.
"Trump's coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity," Patterson wrote. "Trump's coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak."
The "high" point for Trump came after he ordered retaliatory missile attacks against Syria when the Assad regime reportedly gassed its own citizens. The low points were when a court struck down an executive order restricting immigration from several predominately Muslim countries, and when a Republican effort to overturn Obamacare failed.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer (R) takes questions from members of the White House press corps during a daily press briefing at the James Brady Press Briefing Room February 14, 2017 at the White House in Washington, DC.
Getty Images
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer (R) takes questions from members of the White House press corps during a daily press briefing at the James Brady Press Briefing Room February 14, 2017 at the White House in Washington, DC.
Trump's most favorable U.S. coverage has come from Fox, though 52 percent of the coverage was still rated as negative. CNN and NBC tied for least favorable, with 93 percent of stories negative. In Europe, ARD's coverage was 98 percent negative.
CNBC has reached out to the news outlets for comment.
From a topic standpoint, the area where Trump received the most negative coverage was immigration at 98 percent,
while economic stories were just 54 percent negative. The stock market has posted solid gains since Trump took over, and economists have been nudging up their growth expectations based on the president's pitches to lower taxes, cut regulation and spend aggressively on infrastructure.
The survey's methodology looked for newspapers looked at all articles except for letters to the editor, sports and obituaries. The inclusion of editor and op-ed pieces, then, could have played a role in skewing the data somewhat.
The question, of course, is whether Trump has brought the negativity on himself or has been the victim of a press determined to make him look bad.
"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever," Patterson wrote.
"Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency," he added.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html
 
There is bias of course, but the one person hellbent on destroying the Trump presidency is Donald J. Trump. It is also harder to get positive coverage for actions that are not in the realm of positivity, logic or science. For example, let's say a grown man somewhere in his 30s repeatedly fails at basic math. Such as equating 50% of Trump supporters to 50% of the US population and doubling down on it twice after the error was pointed out. Or failure to count the amount of days in a week, and also doubling down on that. Now of course this is just a hypothetical example but how would one turn that into positive coverage? "Adult man discovers new method of counting"?
I'm sure you get my point.
 
Last edited:
There is bias of course, but the one person hellbent on destroying the Trump presidency is Donald J. Trump. It is also harder to get positive coverage for actions that are not in the realm of positivity, logic or science. For example, let's say a grown man somewhere in his 30s repeatedly fails at basic math. Such as equating 50% of Trump supporters to 50% of the US population and doubling down on it twice after the error was pointed out. Or failure to count the amount of days in a week, and also doubling down on that. Now of course this is just a hypothetical example but how would one turn that into positive coverage? "Adult man discovers new method of counting"?
I'm sure you get my point.


]
 
Back
Top Bottom