|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 03 2016 20:03 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:
What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. It's a giant trade agreement between countries in the Pacific ocean. Biggest thing is that it would lesson some reliance on China (and in general would increase reliance on the US). It's a rather monolithic thing, so it can't be summed up very easily, but gist of it is that there's a lot of good things in it, and a lot of bad things, and which parts are good and bad depend on who you are and where you are. I thought it was relatively easy to describe the TPP as simply the updated NAFTA trade deal pyramid scheme that is designed to get cheap labour from China's Asian neighbors such as Malaysia and Vietnam etc now that China's workers are starting to get more expensive.
Part of the problem with TPP or TTIP or whatever it's being called is that it is an enormously large and comprehensive agreement that covers far more than labor availability. Nothing about TPP is relatively easy to describe lol.
|
On September 03 2016 20:03 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:
What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. It's a giant trade agreement between countries in the Pacific ocean. Biggest thing is that it would lesson some reliance on China (and in general would increase reliance on the US). It's a rather monolithic thing, so it can't be summed up very easily, but gist of it is that there's a lot of good things in it, and a lot of bad things, and which parts are good and bad depend on who you are and where you are. I thought it was relatively easy to describe the TPP as simply the updated NAFTA trade deal pyramid scheme that is designed to get cheap labour from China's Asian neighbors such as Malaysia and Vietnam etc now that China's workers are starting to get more expensive.
yeah no. Stuff like the court system are a much bigger deal then just 'cheap labor'.
|
On September 03 2016 14:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 13:11 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 12:32 Toadesstern wrote:On September 03 2016 12:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote:Am I late on this? Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law
A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall.
Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States.
Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically.
The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election.
In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states:
"In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory."
Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year.
Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him.
Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay.
It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate.
Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake.
"At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk."
The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mexico-idUSKCN1182PLwho would have thought It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them. I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit "Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power. It's a quote I very much I agree with. It's actually a big reason of why I support Trump - the people who claim oh look Brexit was such a failure, look how the the pound dropped, etc... And only looking after the short term effects. I think everyone, Trump supporters included should understand that there will be short term costs to such hostile policy, particularly on immigration, it's long term where these benefits can be realized. So from my viewpoint, the US can wave its power and say how it's going to get Mexico to build a wall, because the benefit of having Mexico as a trading ally is a lot smaller to the US and to Mexico. Understand that around 25% of the GDP of mexico comes from US trade, and around 1-2% of GDP of the US comes from Mexico. Not only that, but the US has other markets that could easily replace Mexico in sight, not to mention bring jobs back to US from that lost 1-2% to supply them to the economy instead. Meanwhile, Mexico has absolute no wealthy market to drop its goods off to, and are completely fucked if the US stops trading with them. US trade is the main driving factor in the recent prosperity in Mexico. When Trump mentions this bargaining power difference, it's a serious thing, the US doesn't have good deals. This is exactly what the US needs to do, it's like playing poker, either you're playing with a stupid opponent who's going to play emotionally and lose everything, or they'll cut their losses and run - i.e. renegotiate a new contract with the US, which includes paying tariffs, and other things that will make it more favorable to do business from within the US. Mexico will gladly pay these tariffs (or help pay for building a wall), because trade with the US makes sense for them. Trump doesn't have to say it in such a harsh way, because it will alienate Mexico a bit, and they might vote emotionally, which will be good for neither party. At the same time, he's telling the US citizens that we are the shit, so maybe that makes up for it, as it's a thing of national pride and strength.
The anti Brexit case has always rested on the negative long term impact of potential economic growth of leaving the single market. The pound falling as far as it did is partly a consequence of worse long term expectations.
Your argument is fundamentally wrong because the point of free trade is that both benefit and that with tariffs in the long term both lose out. Trade does not just make sense for Mexico it makes sense for the US as well. You're asking Mexico and the US to both make sacrifices for a symbolic wall.
en.m.wikipedia.org
If you want I can post studies on comparative advantage and thst it does indeed exist.
|
I would be interested in those studies from a purely curious POV. Would you mind linking some?
|
On September 03 2016 20:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 20:03 Madkipz wrote:On September 03 2016 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:
What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. It's a giant trade agreement between countries in the Pacific ocean. Biggest thing is that it would lesson some reliance on China (and in general would increase reliance on the US). It's a rather monolithic thing, so it can't be summed up very easily, but gist of it is that there's a lot of good things in it, and a lot of bad things, and which parts are good and bad depend on who you are and where you are. I thought it was relatively easy to describe the TPP as simply the updated NAFTA trade deal pyramid scheme that is designed to get cheap labour from China's Asian neighbors such as Malaysia and Vietnam etc now that China's workers are starting to get more expensive. Part of the problem with TPP or TTIP or whatever it's being called is that it is an enormously large and comprehensive agreement that covers far more than labor availability. Nothing about TPP is relatively easy to describe lol.
The TPP is the side effect of increased globalization. You either accept that its happening, so you do your best to get your foot in the door so you can help define what it means, or you can stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is not getting shrunk down by increased technology and communication.
Its really that simple. You either are adapting to globalization or you're a globalization denialist.
|
On September 03 2016 06:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 06:45 KwarK wrote:On September 03 2016 06:39 a_flayer wrote:On September 03 2016 06:34 KwarK wrote:
LegalLord
Why are you using the argument that Hillary is such a master political player and dealer that she locked the DNC down ahead of time as something we should count against her as a presidential candidate? Won't that be helpful? To me, it is really strange to think that some people seem to believe that being able to play the game to get elected means you will be a good leader and thus deserve praise/endorsement. I feel like good leaders are those who are able to bring two parties to mutual agreement, and surround themselves with people who are capable of gathering data to make sure that they will make informed decisions instead of firing off on ideological stuff without evidence that the decisions will be good policy. That sort of stuff. Political games are part of the horrifying reality that we find ourselves in, but shouldn't be encouraged in any way shape or form. It's the part of how the sausages are made that nobody wants to see. Your idea that mutual intellectual agreement and compromise will win is a little idealistic. The reality is that half the people she'll have to work with won't want to work with her and will need something in return and the other half who do want to work with her will pretend to be the first half so they don't get left out when the deals are being made. It's a shitty game but that's no reason to send someone in who doesn't know how to play it. People dislike compromise because in politics because it means giving away something you don't want to give away. They forget that the other side did the same thing. You always hear this from the far left of the Democrats, that they "gave up to much to the Republicans" after someone worked on a deal for half a year. Or with the Iran deal, that we "gave up to much". The way you know a deal is a good deal is if both sides of the deal are bitching about it.
I forget that people often think of the other side as an enemy or fools instead of as equals that force you to be challenged into fine-tuning your own ideas closer towards what might be considered perfection.
|
On September 03 2016 22:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 20:13 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2016 20:03 Madkipz wrote:On September 03 2016 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:
What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. It's a giant trade agreement between countries in the Pacific ocean. Biggest thing is that it would lesson some reliance on China (and in general would increase reliance on the US). It's a rather monolithic thing, so it can't be summed up very easily, but gist of it is that there's a lot of good things in it, and a lot of bad things, and which parts are good and bad depend on who you are and where you are. I thought it was relatively easy to describe the TPP as simply the updated NAFTA trade deal pyramid scheme that is designed to get cheap labour from China's Asian neighbors such as Malaysia and Vietnam etc now that China's workers are starting to get more expensive. Part of the problem with TPP or TTIP or whatever it's being called is that it is an enormously large and comprehensive agreement that covers far more than labor availability. Nothing about TPP is relatively easy to describe lol. The TPP is the side effect of increased globalization. You either accept that its happening, so you do your best to get your foot in the door so you can help define what it means, or you can stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is not getting shrunk down by increased technology and communication. Its really that simple. You either are adapting to globalization or you're a globalization denialist.
Overreducing something as complicated as the TPP, particularly given how negotiated it is, into simple for or against positions is both misleading and needlessly polemic.
|
On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote:
What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.
it's a large pacific area trade deal (not including china), to help set uniform standards and such for easier trading.
It's a big deal because there's a lot of people who're upset at globalization, and feel their jobs have been going overseas (true to some extent), and some really haven't benefitted so much from such deals, so it has become a political point for nativists.
|
|
|
On September 03 2016 15:23 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 15:15 Toadesstern wrote:
try selling that to your people as a mexican politician without people going crazy with how much they hate the man Tariffs have always existed, they have always been the norm.
Well, yes, but every major step forward in the eradication of the things was a step forward for the economy of the region doing so, starting with getting trolls out from under bridges and moving through keeping every petty feudal lord from exercising his ability to shake down traders for money and into the gradual demolition of mercantilist schemes.
Tariffs are utterly foolish, especially in a world where increasing them ultimately puts your entire economy at a competitive disadvantage. But I know, we all have to talk about stagnating wages and not realize that in the last 40 years our quality of life for equivalent purchasing power has gone way up, thanks to cheap imports. Yeah, it would be great if wages were going up, and yes, we should probably raise income taxes at the higher end to smooth the curve, but you guys have been alive recently. Imagine if all the crap we get for super cheap from China was still produced in unionized US factories. We'd be poor as shit, even imagining we still made as much money (which we wouldn't, because cheap goods and services are a direct economic benefit to US companies and workers).
|
On September 03 2016 23:33 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 15:23 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 03 2016 15:15 Toadesstern wrote:
try selling that to your people as a mexican politician without people going crazy with how much they hate the man Tariffs have always existed, they have always been the norm. Well, yes, but every major step forward in the eradication of the things was a step forward for the economy of the region doing so, starting with getting trolls out from under bridges and moving through keeping every petty feudal lord from exercising his ability to shake down traders for money and into the gradual demolition of mercantilist schemes. Tariffs are utterly foolish, especially in a world where increasing them ultimately puts your entire economy at a competitive disadvantage. But I know, we all have to talk about stagnating wages and not realize that in the last 40 years our quality of life for equivalent purchasing power has gone way up, thanks to cheap imports. Yeah, it would be great if wages were going up, and yes, we should probably raise income taxes at the higher end to smooth the curve, but you guys have been alive recently. Imagine if all the crap we get for super cheap from China was still produced in unionized US factories. We'd be poor as shit, even imagining we still made as much money (which we wouldn't, because cheap goods and services are a direct economic benefit to US companies and workers).
it is not that simple.
not partaking in the race to the bottom is not necessarily going to hurt all of the population.
especially the stability and existence of a broad middle class of people with high and rising living standard and a feeling of economic participation, were not happening because of free trade but because unionized labor prohibited the race to the bottom. If you treat your workers like shit to compete with china, your workers can only buy cheap shit from china and your company runs out of work.
German car makership is ridiculous at face value: the price for a new car that i would find desireable is so high compared to anything that happens in sectors with full devotion to the free trade race to the bottom (like smartphones), and yet it works out, because it strengthens communities, because it gives people a purpose, workers at the auto makers are proud of them and their work, not only because they believe in the product, but also because they get long term job security and good pay, which actually makes them able to buy them aswell.
The real issue why this model will stop working, is not that countries have to give up competitive disadvantages like unionization to please the gods of free market™ but because labor demand is quickly collapsing under the pressure of automation replacing every last bastion of human endevour.
Quicker or more determined pacing to the bottom will not aliviate the comming problem: people are useless to the economy as suppliers, and only useful as demand. Free trade even though a good idea in principle also will not adress that there will be no more place at the table for the people who are not owners of the means of production.
The only way to solve this issue (if you consider fellow humans worth of living, thich not all of you do ofc. but i as a tiny cog in a machine working to replace other people with automation (document generation for banks) with software, i hold no illusions that i am fully replaceable as well, and i somehow cling to living) is massive redistribution of the gains of this comming new economy.
|
Probably premature to say automation will replace literally everything.
And I hate that I just used the word literally.
|
On September 03 2016 20:54 Ghostcom wrote:
I would be interested in those studies from a purely curious POV. Would you mind linking some?
Yes, I need a bit of time though.
|
United States43232 Posts
On September 04 2016 00:02 Doodsmack wrote:
Probably premature to say automation will replace literally everything.
And I hate that I just used the word literally.
Because literally creates a nearly unprovable standard. Will automation replace sexual reproduction?
|
On September 03 2016 23:57 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 23:33 Yoav wrote:On September 03 2016 15:23 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 03 2016 15:15 Toadesstern wrote:
try selling that to your people as a mexican politician without people going crazy with how much they hate the man Tariffs have always existed, they have always been the norm. Well, yes, but every major step forward in the eradication of the things was a step forward for the economy of the region doing so, starting with getting trolls out from under bridges and moving through keeping every petty feudal lord from exercising his ability to shake down traders for money and into the gradual demolition of mercantilist schemes. Tariffs are utterly foolish, especially in a world where increasing them ultimately puts your entire economy at a competitive disadvantage. But I know, we all have to talk about stagnating wages and not realize that in the last 40 years our quality of life for equivalent purchasing power has gone way up, thanks to cheap imports. Yeah, it would be great if wages were going up, and yes, we should probably raise income taxes at the higher end to smooth the curve, but you guys have been alive recently. Imagine if all the crap we get for super cheap from China was still produced in unionized US factories. We'd be poor as shit, even imagining we still made as much money (which we wouldn't, because cheap goods and services are a direct economic benefit to US companies and workers). it is not that simple. not partaking in the race to the bottom is not necessarily going to hurt all of the population. especially the stability and existence of a broad middle class of people with high and rising living standard and a feeling of economic participation, were not happening because of free trade but because unionized labor prohibited the race to the bottom. If you treat your workers like shit to compete with china, your workers can only buy cheap shit from china and your company runs out of work. German car makership is ridiculous at face value: the price for a new car that i would find desireable is so high compared to anything that happens in sectors with full devotion to the free trade race to the bottom (like smartphones), and yet it works out, because it strengthens communities, because it gives people a purpose, workers at the auto makers are proud of them and their work, not only because they believe in the product, but also because they get long term job security and good pay, which actually makes them able to buy them aswell. The real issue why this model will stop working, is not that countries have to give up competitive disadvantages like unionization to please the gods of free market™ but because labor demand is quickly collapsing under the pressure of automation replacing every last bastion of human endevour. Quicker or more determined pacing to the bottom will not aliviate the comming problem: people are useless to the economy as suppliers, and only useful as demand. Free trade even though a good idea in principle also will not adress that there will be no more place at the table for the people who are not owners of the means of production. The only way to solve this issue (if you consider fellow humans worth of living, thich not all of you do ofc. but i as a tiny cog in a machine working to replace other people with automation (document generation for banks) with software, i hold no illusions that i am fully replaceable as well, and i somehow cling to living) is massive redistribution of the gains of this comming new economy.
"Massive redistribution of gains" => economics.
How does stuff from one place, get transferred to another place, with both sides being happy.
Free markets are what happens when one person has stuff, and other people want stuff, so they redistribute among themselves.
This "race to the bottom" crap never makes sense to me--because "demand" only happens so long as there is a customer base able to buy. As more people lose wages, less stuff gets bought, less stuff gets sold, we move back to a more agrarian lifestyle. Automation becomes less valuable, and companies dissolve with lack of demand. Once things re-stabilize again, then we start back from scratch. Companies reform, automation takes precedence, people become sources of demand once again, etc...
There is no "race to the bottom" where things stagnate down there--that's not how resource exchanges work. At some point, communities will find it easier to just make goods for themselves than afford goods from outside. You be okay that you don't have smart phones and go back to the old ways of life. Things eventually stabilize. The only "race to the bottom" is if the end goal is for everyone to have an upper class lifestyle instead of there being no end goal, and that the economy is just something that happens.
|
On September 04 2016 00:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2016 00:02 Doodsmack wrote:
Probably premature to say automation will replace literally everything.
And I hate that I just used the word literally. Because literally creates a nearly unprovable standard. Will automation replace sexual reproduction?
I don't think it will but it theoretically could.
|
On September 04 2016 01:04 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2016 00:49 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2016 00:02 Doodsmack wrote:
Probably premature to say automation will replace literally everything.
And I hate that I just used the word literally. Because literally creates a nearly unprovable standard. Will automation replace sexual reproduction? I don't think it will but it theoretically could.
And should, logically.
|
Gretchen Carlson Taped Conversations With Roger Ailes (Report)
Roger Ailes’ ouster from Fox News has created new challenges at the network, according to a new report by New York magazine, which is now contending with a shift in leadership and will in months to come may have to work to keep its primetime lineup intact. The shocking episode was spurred, according to the report, by more than a year of inappropriate remarks made by Ailes to former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, who taped her conversations with the executive on her iPhone and then filed a lawsuit.
Representatives from Fox News Channel and 21st Century Fox declined to comment.
The New York report offered new details of Gretchen Carlson’s efforts to fight back against a culture in which Ailes’ harassing remarks had become the norm: “She settled on a simple strategy: She would turn the tables on his surveillance. Beginning in 2014, according to a person familiar with the lawsuit, Carlson brought her iPhone to meetings in Ailes’s office and secretly recorded him saying the kinds of things he’d been saying to her all along. ‘I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago, and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better. Sometimes problems are easier to solve’ that way, he said in one conversation. ‘I’m sure you can do sweet nothings when you want to,’ he said another time.”
The report suggested Carlson may soon announce an eight-figure settlement in her legal battle. Ailes has in the recent past denied all charges against him levied by her and other women. A spokesman for Carlson’s attorneys declined to comment on the report.
Since Ailes’ ouster, 21st Century Fox has set executive chairman Rupert Murdoch at the top of both Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network and elevated Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy to supervise programming and business operations as co-presidents. The New York report suggested the parent company is likely to bring in a new executive to take over for the elder Murdoch whose sons, James and Lachlan, are more involved with the day to day operations of the media conglomerate. Potential candidates for the job might include everyone from Jesse Angelo, publisher of the New York Post, Rebekah Brooks, a longtime News Corp. UK executive; NewsMax CEO Bill Ruddy; or an outsider, the report suggested.
Meanwhile, Fox News faces talent challenges in 2017. Bill O’Reilly, one of the network’s main draws, has suggested in interviews he might consider retiring, while a contract for Megyn Kelly, the 9 p.m. anchor, elapses next year.
http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/gretchen-carlson-roger-ailes-fox-news-1201851105/
|
On September 04 2016 01:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Gretchen Carlson Taped Conversations With Roger Ailes (Report)
Roger Ailes’ ouster from Fox News has created new challenges at the network, according to a new report by New York magazine, which is now contending with a shift in leadership and will in months to come may have to work to keep its primetime lineup intact. The shocking episode was spurred, according to the report, by more than a year of inappropriate remarks made by Ailes to former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, who taped her conversations with the executive on her iPhone and then filed a lawsuit.
Representatives from Fox News Channel and 21st Century Fox declined to comment.
The New York report offered new details of Gretchen Carlson’s efforts to fight back against a culture in which Ailes’ harassing remarks had become the norm: “She settled on a simple strategy: She would turn the tables on his surveillance. Beginning in 2014, according to a person familiar with the lawsuit, Carlson brought her iPhone to meetings in Ailes’s office and secretly recorded him saying the kinds of things he’d been saying to her all along. ‘I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago, and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better. Sometimes problems are easier to solve’ that way, he said in one conversation. ‘I’m sure you can do sweet nothings when you want to,’ he said another time.”
The report suggested Carlson may soon announce an eight-figure settlement in her legal battle. Ailes has in the recent past denied all charges against him levied by her and other women. A spokesman for Carlson’s attorneys declined to comment on the report.
Since Ailes’ ouster, 21st Century Fox has set executive chairman Rupert Murdoch at the top of both Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network and elevated Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy to supervise programming and business operations as co-presidents. The New York report suggested the parent company is likely to bring in a new executive to take over for the elder Murdoch whose sons, James and Lachlan, are more involved with the day to day operations of the media conglomerate. Potential candidates for the job might include everyone from Jesse Angelo, publisher of the New York Post, Rebekah Brooks, a longtime News Corp. UK executive; NewsMax CEO Bill Ruddy; or an outsider, the report suggested.
Meanwhile, Fox News faces talent challenges in 2017. Bill O’Reilly, one of the network’s main draws, has suggested in interviews he might consider retiring, while a contract for Megyn Kelly, the 9 p.m. anchor, elapses next year. http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/gretchen-carlson-roger-ailes-fox-news-1201851105/
There's no way Ailes was all alone in his harassing of women. When an atmosphere like that is set from the top, inevitably underlings follow it (also anyone who has watched fox news will have seen it).
I would love to see fox news taken over by women, I've always found Megyn Kelly's staunch defense of women's rights, juxtaposed to her insistence on white supremacy quite amusing.
|
TIL when you take all the vowels out of Reince Priebus' name your left with RNC PR BS
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
