sleeper;1849742 wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-25/trump-s-sanctuary-cities-order-blocked-by-federal-judge?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics



So much winning.

• Judge who blocked Trump sanctuary city order bundled $200G for Obama

all you need to know

QuakerOats;1849828 wrote:all you need to know

Remember when Obama's Justice Department threatened to withhold federal education funding if North Carolina did not repeal their public restroom law. I am guessing this judge rules no federal overreach and does not get anywhere near the 10th.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-bill-feds-thre/

majorspark;1849798 wrote:Name them.

You are welcome to Google their names. I'm sure your legal experience blows them out of the water in comparison.

QuakerOats;1849828 wrote:

• Judge who blocked Trump sanctuary city order bundled $200G for Obama

all you need to know

Fox News.

majorspark;1849836 wrote:Remember when Obama's Justice Department threatened to withhold federal education funding if North Carolina did not repeal their public restroom law. I am guessing this judge rules no federal overreach and does not get anywhere near the 10th.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-bill-feds-thre/

Link to the executed EO?

No? Obama knew it was unconstitutional and therefore did not sign it. Trump? The unconstitutional President.

sleeper;1849850 wrote:Fox News.

So it's made up? Don't be an idiot. It's no surprise the guy is an Obama shill.

In other news today, because ESPN has turned into a liberal turd bowl they fired around 100 on air personalities due to their declining numbers. Stick to Sports.

iclfan2;1849858 wrote:So it's made up? Don't be an idiot. It's no surprise the guy is an Obama shill.

In other news today, because ESPN has turned into a liberal turd bowl they fired around 100 on air personalities due to their declining numbers. Stick to Sports.

Yes. Fox News is GOP propaganda. Sorry you are so ignorant.

Does anyone else find the upticks in the market odd, given that we've hit the debt ceiling again and are seemingly interested in war with North Korea (in addition to all other conflicts and military action)?

iclfan2;1849858 wrote:So it's made up? Don't be an idiot. It's no surprise the guy is an Obama shill.

In other news today, because ESPN has turned into a liberal turd bowl they fired around 100 on air personalities due to their declining numbers. Stick to Sports.

1. People who call out political leanings of one station while ignoring those of another one that has the same leanings they do are stupid.

2. People who equate a station's success or failure with their political leanings are stupid. ESPN's numbers are declining because we live in a world where anyone can get any scores or highlights from any game by picking up their phone (or computer if they don't have a smartphone), making the concept of sitting down and watching Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, Primetime of any of their other highlights shows more of a time-waster than something of actual value.

Heretic;1849865 wrote:1. People who call out political leanings of one station while ignoring those of another one that has the same leanings they do are stupid.

2. People who equate a station's success or failure with their political leanings are stupid. ESPN's numbers are declining because we live in a world where anyone can get any scores or highlights from any game by picking up their phone (or computer if they don't have a smartphone), making the concept of sitting down and watching Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, Primetime of any of their other highlights shows more of a time-waster than something of actual value.

Not sure I agree 100% with point #2. I partially agree with your theory, but ESPN is failing, because the quality of their product has been turning into a pile of shit for the last 7 years. Political leanings probably plays into the quality, but not as much for the other reasons the quality of the product has been terrible.

Heretic;1849865 wrote:1. People who call out political leanings of one station while ignoring those of another one that has the same leanings they do are stupid.

2. People who equate a station's success or failure with their political leanings are stupid. ESPN's numbers are declining because we live in a world where anyone can get any scores or highlights from any game by picking up their phone (or computer if they don't have a smartphone), making the concept of sitting down and watching Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, Primetime of any of their other highlights shows more of a time-waster than something of actual value.

Agreed on both accounts. Hard to disagree with reality.

O-Trap;1849864 wrote:Does anyone else find the upticks in the market odd, given that we've hit the debt ceiling again and are seemingly interested in war with North Korea (in addition to all other conflicts and military action)?

Markets are pricing in the proposed tax cuts. Good for the stock market, bad if you care at all about the national debt and future generations.

Although you have to ask yourself if a tax cut is really going to encourage substantial growth when cash on hand in companies is at record highs across the board thanks to Obama's economic recovery. We aren't hurting on capital to re-invest in the economy, we are hurting because companies aren't investing their cash into other means of production.

sleeper;1849870 wrote:Markets are pricing in the proposed tax cuts. Good for the stock market, bad if you care at all about the national debt and future generations.

Still, a promise for tax cuts while, at the same time, hitting the debt ceiling and seeing a potential additional expense in a conflict with N. Korea? Doesn't actually seem like a recipe for economic success. Seems more like the sort of thing you'd see in a bubble, not dissimilar to the false confidence in the mortgage-backed securities a decade ago.

Heretic;1849865 wrote:1. People who call out political leanings of one station while ignoring those of another one that has the same leanings they do are stupid.

There is a difference between articles with facts and articles with opinions. To say it's fox news, when he factually raised money and donated to Obama is stupid. Is fox right leaning, obviously, but is the guy an Obama shill? Yes

Heretic;1849865 wrote:2. People who equate a station's success or failure with their political leanings are stupid. ESPN's numbers are declining because we live in a world where anyone can get any scores or highlights from any game by picking up their phone (or computer if they don't have a smartphone), making the concept of sitting down and watching Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, Primetime of any of their other highlights shows more of a time-waster than something of actual value.

And I'm not saying ESPN's demise is it's politics, but I do think it plays a small part. People watch sports to escape bullshit, not be told white people are angry by Jemele Hill.

O-Trap;1849871 wrote:Still, a promise for tax cuts while, at the same time, hitting the debt ceiling and seeing a potential additional expense in a conflict with N. Korea? Doesn't actually seem like a recipe for economic success. Seems more like the sort of thing you'd see in a bubble, not dissimilar to the false confidence in the mortgage-backed securities a decade ago.

I have no doubt in my mind we will have a Trump recession before 2020.

I think the main problem with ESPN is a mix of a few issues.

1. Costs a shit-ton to buy rights for various pro/college leagues. Adding to that, a lot of conferences are exploring their own networks. Like, I saw a decent few of the guys being let go are NHL people (ESPN doesn't have their rights) and people covering the B1G (has their own station).

2. Leading to a lot of programming being more "entertainment" and less sports. Tons of highlight shows, tons of HOT TAEK shows and so on. Sort of like how MTV went away from music videos and into reality shows and other shit, ESPN went away from broadcasting sports and put more of a focus on their anchors and commentators being entertaining, either with catch-phrases and one-liners (SC) or with loud, crazy opinions (every fucking hot taek show).

3. And also way too much "dead air" to the casual viewer. Constant re-running of SportsCenter (which they've always done, to be fair) and a lot of niche stuff like spelling bees and so on, which might have value to some people, but none whatsoever to me.

Like, for example, this is baseball season. So what does ESPN have? Wednesday night, Sunday night and Monday night. One national game each night, usually focused around the same handful of markets (I've seen my Pirates twice...both times against the Cubs, so I think we can all guess what team they were there for). Hell, their next three games (counting tonight) are all games in Boston. Then, the next three all feature the Yankees as one of the two teams involved. Unless you're a fan of one of the big-market teams they focus their coverage around, they have next-to-no value as far as baseball goes, because you can get any info you can glean from any of their countless highlight shows from the Internet.

sleeper;1849883 wrote:I have no doubt in my mind we will have a Trump recession before 2020.

It wouldn't surprise me, either. The numbers just don't look like they add up to a positive market over the long term.

sleeper;1849870 wrote: We aren't hurting on capital to re-invest in the economy, we are hurting because companies aren't investing their cash into other means of production.

There was little re-investing because of the threats emanating from the policies of the obama administration. Ramming Marxist policies down the throat of a capitalist economy is more than reckless; it is anti-American. As all of these radical policies, rules and executive orders get rolled back, the economy will begin to actually grow and capex will actually yield positive returns.

iclfan2;1849874 wrote:And I'm not saying ESPN's demise is it's politics, but I do think it plays a small part. People watch sports to escape bullshit, not be told white people are angry by Jemele Hill.

Amen.

Heretic;1849884 wrote:2. Leading to a lot of programming being more "entertainment" and less sports. Tons of highlight shows, tons of HOT TAEK shows and so on. Sort of like how MTV went away from music videos and into reality shows and other shit, ESPN went away from broadcasting sports and put more of a focus on their anchors and commentators being entertaining, either with catch-phrases and one-liners (SC) or with loud, crazy opinions (every fucking hot taek show).

Yeah, I never minded the SportsCenter repeats and such. Made it easy to catch the whole roundup from the previous day, regardless of when I turned it on. Plus, it fills the gaps when there just isn't any relevant sports activity going on during the day.

The replays of historic games make sense, too. They do tend to focus on bigger markets with this as well, but at the very least, they were usually exciting games, so people were all familiar with the excitement associated with the games.

I agree that the hot take shows have gotten mundane, though. That only works for so long, and if you flood the channel with it, they all start to run together. I've pretty much just picked my favorite and tuned the rest of them out. Frankly, I think Skip Bayless made the right call getting out when he did.

O-Trap;1849885 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me, either. The numbers just don't look like they add up to a positive market over the long term.

Check equity market returns going back 100 years ..............approximately 11% annualized, through all the wars, depression, recessions, repression, debt increases, booms, bubbles and busts. The market now appears to be pricing in the fact that business might have the government shackles removed so it can compete in the global market with less intrusion by absurd regulation and bureaucracy. We can begin to risk capital again, innovate, and produce goods for the benefit of all.


Plus, the 10 year Treasury yield remains a paltry 2.3%.

QuakerOats;1849895 wrote:Check equity market returns going back 100 years ..............approximately 11% annualized, through all the wars, depression, recessions, repression, debt increases, booms, bubbles and busts. The market now appears to be pricing in the fact that business might have the government shackles removed so it can compete in the global market with less intrusion by absurd regulation and bureaucracy. We can begin to risk capital again, innovate, and produce goods for the benefit of all.


Plus, the 10 year Treasury yield remains a paltry 2.3%.

Loosing the shackles is a good thing, of course, but it has to be accompanied by a significant decrease in spending to avoid the same bubble-burst-bubble-burst pattern. Otherwise, we're just artificially inflating confidence.

We could cut federal spending by 20% and not miss a beat. We added an extra $800 billion in supposed 'one-time' TARP spending in '09-10 cycle ............ IT HAS NEVER GONE AWAY. Sick.

QuakerOats;1849919 wrote:We could cut federal spending by 20% and not miss a beat. We added an extra $800 billion in supposed 'one-time' TARP spending in '09-10 cycle ............ IT HAS NEVER GONE AWAY. Sick.

You won't hear me supporting an increase in spending at any point, whether it's Bush's stimulus, Obama's stimulus, an unnecessary military conflict (which Obama supporters should be really quiet about, given his track record while in office), or a wall.

If you'll recall, raising the debt ceiling is a bad idea. It's like raising the credit limit on someone addicted to maxing out their credit lines.

Just as well, adding the federal expense of another war would be more problematic than any 'Cash for Clunkers' nonsense, and I recall how aptly you opposed that because of the financial ramifications.

Unfortunately, we don't get to detach ourselves from the federal government in an economic crisis. Cutting taxes has to come after cutting spending.