Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 237

Thread: There is nothing more important than voting for Bernie Sanders. This may be our last chance

  1. #41
    Platinum cmoney's Avatar
    Reputation
    1201
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,824
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Dragons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by anonamoose View Post

    Whoopdee fucking doo. At least he wasn't out selling subprime mortgages, went into default, then got handed billions of tax payer money in government bailouts and profited from both ends.
    So again a classic case of a problem that the left causes that the right gets blamed for ... somehow?

    You don't get to have legislation that FORCES banks to take on home loans for derelicts that have no way or no intention of paying for the loan they were handed and then blame it on money guys that were protecting their... money.

    It's the cause of bleeding hearts that gave retards loans in the first place, not the guy covering the eventual vig on the bad bet he was forced to take.

    As an aside, don't think i'm siding with the banks here, I thought they should have been allowed to crater AND all the homeowners should have been given the deeds to their houses if their debt was bailed out with a taxpayer funded bailout.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...investment_Act
    http://russp.us/subprime.htm

    Exactly. The government creates the problem by claiming everyone should be able to own a house even if they cant afford one. They create the environment where scum bag mortgage brokers/bankers can rip people off. I remember people were buying homes with 0 down on a 600k house with "STATED FUCKING INCOME" lmao.

    It is the same BS with college loans now.

     
    Comments
      
      FPS_Russia: Yea there was all kinds of fools with big houses custom swimming pools and a shitty job. crazy timnes
    Last edited by cmoney; 01-30-2016 at 11:36 AM.
    :freelewfather

  2. #42
    Photoballer 4Dragons's Avatar
    Reputation
    2687
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    10,648
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by FPS_Russia View Post
    4 dragons and pooh
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    I agree, and after you pay back the 19 Trillion in debt you owe, we should do that.

  3. #43
    One Percenter Pooh's Avatar
    Reputation
    1378
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,744
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by FPS_Russia View Post
    4 dragons and pooh
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  4. #44
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    9,416
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by cmoney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Dragons View Post

    So again a classic case of a problem that the left causes that the right gets blamed for ... somehow?

    You don't get to have legislation that FORCES banks to take on home loans for derelicts that have no way or no intention of paying for the loan they were handed and then blame it on money guys that were protecting their... money.

    It's the cause of bleeding hearts that gave retards loans in the first place, not the guy covering the eventual vig on the bad bet he was forced to take.

    As an aside, don't think i'm siding with the banks here, I thought they should have been allowed to crater AND all the homeowners should have been given the deeds to their houses if their debt was bailed out with a taxpayer funded bailout.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...investment_Act
    http://russp.us/subprime.htm

    Exactly. The government creates the problem by claiming everyone should be able to own an house even if they cant afford one. They create the environment where scum bag mortgage brokers/bankers can rip people off. I remember people were buying homes with 0 down on a 600k house with "STATED FUCKING INCOME" lmao.

    It is the same BS with college loans now.
    Don't conflate the lending related to the CRA with the abandoning of mortgage lending standards in the 2000s that caused the mortgage market bubble. The Federal Reserve studied how much impact the CRA had on the mortgage market bubble and concluded that it had no appreciable effect.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

    The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  5. #45
    Photoballer 4Dragons's Avatar
    Reputation
    2687
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    10,648
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cmoney View Post


    Exactly. The government creates the problem by claiming everyone should be able to own an house even if they cant afford one. They create the environment where scum bag mortgage brokers/bankers can rip people off. I remember people were buying homes with 0 down on a 600k house with "STATED FUCKING INCOME" lmao.

    It is the same BS with college loans now.
    Don't conflate the lending related to the CRA with the abandoning of mortgage lending standards in the 2000s that caused the mortgage market bubble. The Federal Reserve studied how much impact the CRA had on the mortgage market bubble and concluded that it had no appreciable effect.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

    The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.
    That's like saying that it didn't happen. We know that the subprime market and subsequent bundling is what cratered the market. The logistics of 1000 people buying $1M houses that they can't afford does not offset the 1M people that bought $100,000 houses they couldn't afford. It all goes on the same ledger.

  6. #46
    Platinum cmoney's Avatar
    Reputation
    1201
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,824
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Dragons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post

    Don't conflate the lending related to the CRA with the abandoning of mortgage lending standards in the 2000s that caused the mortgage market bubble. The Federal Reserve studied how much impact the CRA had on the mortgage market bubble and concluded that it had no appreciable effect.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

    The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.
    That's like saying that it didn't happen. We know that the subprime market and subsequent bundling is what cratered the market. The logistics of 1000 people buying $1M houses that they can't afford does not offset the 1M people that bought $100,000 houses they couldn't afford. It all goes on the same ledger.
    Right exactly. So you had both poor people and "rich" people buying houses they couldn't afford both of which caused the problem. I go back to my point about "Stated Income." People who didnt have a job, but had good credit, were saying they made 200k a year and the banks would underwrite the loan for a 600k+ house. So who even knows if the "higher income borrowers" were really higher income or were just lying. So much of it was made up. It was so ridiculously easy to get a loan in those days.

    The point is no one had to have any skin in the game whether they were rich or poor and that is ultimately what caused the problem. No other country had such low standards to buy a home.
    :freelewfather

  7. #47
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    9,416
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by cmoney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 4Dragons View Post

    So again a classic case of a problem that the left causes that the right gets blamed for ... somehow?

    You don't get to have legislation that FORCES banks to take on home loans for derelicts that have no way or no intention of paying for the loan they were handed and then blame it on money guys that were protecting their... money.

    It's the cause of bleeding hearts that gave retards loans in the first place, not the guy covering the eventual vig on the bad bet he was forced to take.

    As an aside, don't think i'm siding with the banks here, I thought they should have been allowed to crater AND all the homeowners should have been given the deeds to their houses if their debt was bailed out with a taxpayer funded bailout.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...investment_Act
    http://russp.us/subprime.htm

    Exactly. The government creates the problem by claiming everyone should be able to own a house even if they cant afford one. They create the environment where scum bag mortgage brokers/bankers can rip people off. I remember people were buying homes with 0 down on a 600k house with "STATED FUCKING INCOME" lmao.

    It is the same BS with college loans now.
    That the federal government fostered home ownership is a fact, but don't buy the political spin that the LEFT was the only side of the political spectrum that promoted that policy.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/12/21...?referer=&_r=0

    Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
    By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
    DECEMBER 21, 2008

    WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

    - President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

    The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."

    It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

    The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

    Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

    "How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"

    Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

    There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

    But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

    From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

    Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

    As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."

    The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

    "There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."

    Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.

    And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.

    "The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."

    For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security, a government retirement and disability benefits program. The housing market was a bright spot: Ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.

    Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.

    "No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."

    Today, millions of Americans are facing foreclosure, home ownership rates are virtually no higher than when Bush took office, Fannie and Freddie are in a government conservatorship, and the bailout cost to taxpayers could run in the trillions of dollars.

    As the economy has shed jobs - 533,000 last month alone - and his party has been punished by irate voters, the weakened president has granted his Treasury secretary extraordinary leeway in managing the crisis.

    Never once, Paulson said in a recent interview, has Bush overruled him. "I've got a boss," he explained, who "understands that when you're dealing with something as unprecedented and fast-moving as this, we need to have a different operating style."

    Paulson and other senior advisers to Bush say the administration has responded well to the turmoil, demonstrating flexibility under difficult circumstances. "There is not any playbook," Paulson said.

    The White House issued an unusually extensive, and highly critical, response to The Times article on Sunday, saying that it had shown "gross negligence" in its reporting and that the story "relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed."

    "The Times's 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view," the statement said.

    In recent weeks Bush has shared his views of how the nation came to the brink of economic disaster. He cites corporate greed and market excesses fueled by a flood of foreign cash - "Wall Street got drunk," he has said - and the policies of past administrations. He blames Congress for failing to reform Fannie and Freddie.

    Last week, Fox News asked Bush if he was worried about being the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. "No," Bush replied. "I will be known as somebody who saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing."

    Darrin West could not believe it. The president of the United States was standing in his living room. It was June 17, 2002, a day West recalls as "the highlight of my life." Bush, in Atlanta to introduce a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime.

    West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment - just the sort of creative public-private financing Bush was promoting.

    "Part of economic security," Bush declared that day, "is owning your own home."

    A lot has changed since then. West, beset by personal problems, has left Atlanta. Unable to sell his home for what he owed, he said, he gave it back to the bank last year. Like other communities across the United States, Park Place South has been hit with a foreclosure crisis affecting at least 10 percent of its 232 homes, according to Masharn Wilson, a developer who led Bush's tour. "I just don't think what he envisioned was actually carried out," she said.

    Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating home ownership is hardly novel; Bill Clinton's administration did it, too. For Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

    But for much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.

    So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

    Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

    And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

    The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

    And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

    The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.

    As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.

    The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina's attorney general, said, "They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West."

    The president did push rules aimed at requiring lenders to explain loan terms more clearly. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

    In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month.

    Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Bush's ownership push backfired. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, "over-incented housing."

    Hennessey put it this way: "I would not say too much emphasis on expanding home ownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices."
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  8. #48
    Platinum cmoney's Avatar
    Reputation
    1201
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,824
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cmoney View Post


    Exactly. The government creates the problem by claiming everyone should be able to own a house even if they cant afford one. They create the environment where scum bag mortgage brokers/bankers can rip people off. I remember people were buying homes with 0 down on a 600k house with "STATED FUCKING INCOME" lmao.

    It is the same BS with college loans now.
    That the federal government fostered home ownership is a fact, but don't buy the political spin that the LEFT was the only side of the political spectrum that promoted that policy.

    Absolutely not. Both sides completely fucked us with this. You had the Clinton administration and then the torch was carried by Bush. Both of them had pretty much the same policies in regards to this. My only point is that I find it annoying how Bernie talks about how the banks caused the financial crisis when it was the governments policies (both Left and Right) that allowed these scumbags to operate so freely. If we had common sense standards in regard to home loans (like maybe you need a fucking down payment and a job) we would have never been in that mess.

    I just dont like how Sanders is now trying to play the hero when he is career politician that did nothing to stop the crisis.
    :freelewfather

  9. #49
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    9,416
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by cmoney View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post

    That the federal government fostered home ownership is a fact, but don't buy the political spin that the LEFT was the only side of the political spectrum that promoted that policy.
    Absolutely not. Both sides completely fucked us with this. You had the Clinton administration and then the torch was carried by Bush. Both of them had pretty much the same policies in regards to this. My only point is that I find it annoying how Bernie talks about how the banks caused the financial crisis when it was the governments policies (both Left and Right) that allowed these scumbags to operate so freely. If we had common sense standards in regard to home loans (like maybe you need a fucking down payment and a job) we would have never been in that mess.

    I just dont like how Sanders is now trying to play the hero when he is career politician that did nothing to stop the crisis.
    I agree that most veteran Washington politicians were complicit in letting the banks play with the federal government's implicit guarantee to bail the banks out.

    IMO, the only notable one national pol who doesn't have dirty hands in the matter is Elizabeth Warren. She was a bankruptcy scholar who studied how the American middle class was getting deeper and deeper into debt risk with the complicity of the federal government enabling the financial industry. I first learned of her watching this presentation she gave at a seminar, and what she spoke of scared me enough that I was in denial about the matter for quite some time. Too scary to really accept at the time given my own buying into the myth of the success of the American economy at the time.

    She gave this presentation in June 2007. It's a bit long, but chock full of presciently scary stats.


     
    Comments
      
      FPS_Russia: I would never click on any of her speeches. I love how everyone acts likes she's feared by the corrupt bankers. In reality she's lol passive
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  10. #50
    Photoballer 4Dragons's Avatar
    Reputation
    2687
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    10,648
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post

    I agree that most veteran Washington politicians were complicit in letting the banks play with the federal government's implicit guarantee to bail the banks out.

    IMO, the only notable one national pol who doesn't have dirty hands in the matter is Elizabeth Warren. She was a bankruptcy scholar who studied how the American middle class was getting deeper and deeper into debt risk with the complicity of the federal government enabling the financial industry. I first learned of her watching this presentation she gave at a seminar, and what she spoke of scared me enough that I was in denial about the matter for quite some time. Too scary to really accept at the time given my own buying into the myth of the success of the American economy at the time.

    She gave this presentation in June 2007. It's a bit long, but chock full of presciently scary stats.


    You do understand that all this immigration talk, which both political parties want and voters do not (seemingly), is the lynchpin for killing off the middle class once and for all. We will finally have the Blade Runner society: uber rich and metaphoric slaves. Oh, we get androids eventually too that put even more people out of work, lol.

  11. #51
    Diamond vegas1369's Avatar
    Reputation
    1439
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,185
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Anyone who basically villainizes people who have worked hard and have been fortunate enough to create wealth for themselves is as much of an asshole to me as these far right idiots who think that the bible and their ideology are the blueprint on how to run government.

    I get villainizing big banks and their CEO's, attacking the Industrial Military Complex and corporations running elections, but to basically lump all "billionaires" into that same group is undermining the American dream. To base your campaign and beliefs on giving hope to a bunch of deadbeats and soon to be college kids, which IMO is pretty much at the heart of the Sanders campaign is no different than a story that's been told and used since the midievel times... Modern day Robin Hood is all he is to me.

    All of his ideas when it comes to money are completely unrealistic.

    On the flip side... Trump is sort of a genius in that he has completely manipulated the Republican party. He is, without question, a Democrat at heart... A Democrat that knew he had absolutely no shot at winning the nomination in that party... So what did he do? He decided there would be nothing easier than pulling the wool over a bunch of mouth breathing, right wing bigoted whack jobs and tugging at the strings of the issues that they think are closest to their hearts, all the while tearing down one by one the candidates that actually do support the ridiculous antiquated beliefs and ideology of the now defunct party.

    Sorry to say Druff, as far as Presidential elections go, the Republican party is dead. Libertarian party will most likely rise within the next 4 election cycles IMO, and Republicans will be in the minority.

  12. #52
    Hurricane Expert tgull's Avatar
    Reputation
    738
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Jerry Got Game
    Posts
    6,652
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by vegas1369 View Post
    Anyone who basically villainizes people who have worked hard and have been fortunate enough to create wealth for themselves is as much of an asshole to me as these far right idiots who think that the bible and their ideology are the blueprint on how to run government.

    I get villainizing big banks and their CEO's, attacking the Industrial Military Complex and corporations running elections, but to basically lump all "billionaires" into that same group is undermining the American dream. To base your campaign and beliefs on giving hope to a bunch of deadbeats and soon to be college kids, which IMO is pretty much at the heart of the Sanders campaign is no different than a story that's been told and used since the midievel times... Modern day Robin Hood is all he is to me.

    All of his ideas when it comes to money are completely unrealistic.

    On the flip side... Trump is sort of a genius in that he has completely manipulated the Republican party. He is, without question, a Democrat at heart... A Democrat that knew he had absolutely no shot at winning the nomination in that party... So what did he do? He decided there would be nothing easier than pulling the wool over a bunch of mouth breathing, right wing bigoted whack jobs and tugging at the strings of the issues that they think are closest to their hearts, all the while tearing down one by one the candidates that actually do support the ridiculous antiquated beliefs and ideology of the now defunct party.

    Sorry to say Druff, as far as Presidential elections go, the Republican party is dead. Libertarian party will most likely rise within the next 4 election cycles IMO, and Republicans will be in the minority.
    Trump's enthusiasm meter is not right wind whack jobs. It's the disenfranchised middle class, particularly white. Most of them are Democrats. He is attracting the same votes Reagan did. Reagan won Michigan in the general election twice despite Unions controlling the state. Nobody knew why, and how he did it, he just did. That is Trump's ace in the hole. When wages have not gone up for years like they have not since 2006, people on both sides look to the Populist.

  13. #53
    One Percenter Pooh's Avatar
    Reputation
    1378
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,744
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by tgull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vegas1369 View Post
    Anyone who basically villainizes people who have worked hard and have been fortunate enough to create wealth for themselves is as much of an asshole to me as these far right idiots who think that the bible and their ideology are the blueprint on how to run government.

    I get villainizing big banks and their CEO's, attacking the Industrial Military Complex and corporations running elections, but to basically lump all "billionaires" into that same group is undermining the American dream. To base your campaign and beliefs on giving hope to a bunch of deadbeats and soon to be college kids, which IMO is pretty much at the heart of the Sanders campaign is no different than a story that's been told and used since the midievel times... Modern day Robin Hood is all he is to me.

    All of his ideas when it comes to money are completely unrealistic.

    On the flip side... Trump is sort of a genius in that he has completely manipulated the Republican party. He is, without question, a Democrat at heart... A Democrat that knew he had absolutely no shot at winning the nomination in that party... So what did he do? He decided there would be nothing easier than pulling the wool over a bunch of mouth breathing, right wing bigoted whack jobs and tugging at the strings of the issues that they think are closest to their hearts, all the while tearing down one by one the candidates that actually do support the ridiculous antiquated beliefs and ideology of the now defunct party.

    Sorry to say Druff, as far as Presidential elections go, the Republican party is dead. Libertarian party will most likely rise within the next 4 election cycles IMO, and Republicans will be in the minority.
    Trump's enthusiasm meter is not right wind whack jobs. It's the disenfranchised middle class, particularly white. Most of them are Democrats. He is attracting the same votes Reagan did. Reagan won Michigan in the general election twice despite Unions controlling the state. Nobody knew why, and how he did it, he just did. That is Trump's ace in the hole. When wages have not gone up for years like they have not since 2006, people on both sides look to the Populist.
    With all due respect, Reagan won all states but MN one time. Trump is no Reagan.

  14. #54
    One Percenter Pooh's Avatar
    Reputation
    1378
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,744
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by vegas1369 View Post
    Anyone who basically villainizes people who have worked hard and have been fortunate enough to create wealth for themselves is as much of an asshole to me as these far right idiots who think that the bible and their ideology are the blueprint on how to run government.

    I get villainizing big banks and their CEO's, attacking the Industrial Military Complex and corporations running elections, but to basically lump all "billionaires" into that same group is undermining the American dream. To base your campaign and beliefs on giving hope to a bunch of deadbeats and soon to be college kids, which IMO is pretty much at the heart of the Sanders campaign is no different than a story that's been told and used since the midievel times... Modern day Robin Hood is all he is to me.

    All of his ideas when it comes to money are completely unrealistic.

    On the flip side... Trump is sort of a genius in that he has completely manipulated the Republican party. He is, without question, a Democrat at heart... A Democrat that knew he had absolutely no shot at winning the nomination in that party... So what did he do? He decided there would be nothing easier than pulling the wool over a bunch of mouth breathing, right wing bigoted whack jobs and tugging at the strings of the issues that they think are closest to their hearts, all the while tearing down one by one the candidates that actually do support the ridiculous antiquated beliefs and ideology of the now defunct party.

    Sorry to say Druff, as far as Presidential elections go, the Republican party is dead. Libertarian party will most likely rise within the next 4 election cycles IMO, and Republicans will be in the minority.
    Nice to see you coming around. You're going to be a rich man soon and Bernie wants to take that shit because you didn't build that shit. Oh wait, that's Obama. Nevermind.

  15. #55
    Hurricane Expert tgull's Avatar
    Reputation
    738
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Jerry Got Game
    Posts
    6,652
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tgull View Post

    Trump's enthusiasm meter is not right wind whack jobs. It's the disenfranchised middle class, particularly white. Most of them are Democrats. He is attracting the same votes Reagan did. Reagan won Michigan in the general election twice despite Unions controlling the state. Nobody knew why, and how he did it, he just did. That is Trump's ace in the hole. When wages have not gone up for years like they have not since 2006, people on both sides look to the Populist.
    With all due respect, Reagan won all states but MN one time. Trump is no Reagan.
    You are referring to 1984. Look @ 1980 and get back with me.

  16. #56
    Platinum
    Reputation
    21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,113
    Load Metric
    104971919
    The look on Trump's face at :10 sec. as everyone laughs. He has that (We'll see if you'll be laughing in 2016) look.

  17. #57
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10981
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    58,307
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    104971919
    The housing crisis of 2008 really did expose the worst of both parties.

    Republicans wanted to relax oversight on banks and basically let them do what they wanted.

    Democrats objected at first, but then came back with, "Well, okay, but only if poor people get in on some of this action."

    So a compromise was made, and everyone got on the same fail bus headed full speed toward a cliff.

    The irritating thing is how Democrats have used that crisis to separate themselves from Republicans, while the reverse isn't true.

    You don't see many Republicans saying, "The 2008 housing and bank crisis is the reason you should vote Republican", but you have so many Democrats saying that's the reason you should vote for them.

    Republican's tend to only bring up the Dems' fault in the matter when attacked first about the matter. So most of them know their own party fucked up there, but also realize that Dems were equally culpable.

    But most Democrats really believe that the 2008 crash was all the Republicans' fault, and they should be bringing it up at every opportunity to make Republicans look bad.

    Kind of reminds me of 9/11.

    Democrat logic:

    Bush in office 8 months and didn't take enough action against al Qaeda = 9/11 his fault

    Clinton in office 8 YEARS and didn't take enough action against al Qaeda = 9/11 Bush's fault

  18. #58
    All Sorts of Sports gut's Avatar
    Reputation
    817
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,048
    Load Metric
    104971919
    For pure entertainment value, I'm rooting for a Bernie vs. Trump final

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: That would be EPIC!!! LOL!

  19. #59
    All Sorts of Sports gut's Avatar
    Reputation
    817
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,048
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by tgull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooh View Post

    With all due respect, Reagan won all states but MN one time. Trump is no Reagan.
    You are referring to 1984. Look @ 1980 and get back with me.

    Pooh means that he won every state AT LEAST once except MN. He's right, also, Trump (nor hardly anyone) can compare to Reagan. Reagan was handed the white house on a silver platter, no one will ever have it that easy again. Ronnies hardest battle was the repub. primaries before 1980. Carter was a dead man walking, and Mondale had a campaign that was ran so poorly, you'd think it was created by BajaCoastMedia.

  20. #60
    Diamond vegas1369's Avatar
    Reputation
    1439
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,185
    Load Metric
    104971919
    Quote Originally Posted by tgull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vegas1369 View Post
    Anyone who basically villainizes people who have worked hard and have been fortunate enough to create wealth for themselves is as much of an asshole to me as these far right idiots who think that the bible and their ideology are the blueprint on how to run government.

    I get villainizing big banks and their CEO's, attacking the Industrial Military Complex and corporations running elections, but to basically lump all "billionaires" into that same group is undermining the American dream. To base your campaign and beliefs on giving hope to a bunch of deadbeats and soon to be college kids, which IMO is pretty much at the heart of the Sanders campaign is no different than a story that's been told and used since the midievel times... Modern day Robin Hood is all he is to me.

    All of his ideas when it comes to money are completely unrealistic.

    On the flip side... Trump is sort of a genius in that he has completely manipulated the Republican party. He is, without question, a Democrat at heart... A Democrat that knew he had absolutely no shot at winning the nomination in that party... So what did he do? He decided there would be nothing easier than pulling the wool over a bunch of mouth breathing, right wing bigoted whack jobs and tugging at the strings of the issues that they think are closest to their hearts, all the while tearing down one by one the candidates that actually do support the ridiculous antiquated beliefs and ideology of the now defunct party.

    Sorry to say Druff, as far as Presidential elections go, the Republican party is dead. Libertarian party will most likely rise within the next 4 election cycles IMO, and Republicans will be in the minority.
    Trump's enthusiasm meter is not right wind whack jobs. It's the disenfranchised middle class, particularly white. Most of them are Democrats. He is attracting the same votes Reagan did. Reagan won Michigan in the general election twice despite Unions controlling the state. Nobody knew why, and how he did it, he just did. That is Trump's ace in the hole. When wages have not gone up for years like they have not since 2006, people on both sides look to the Populist.
    I believe the bold part should be "some" of them are Democrats, which is true, but definitely not most. Most are people fed up with the ridiculous amount of political correctness shoved down our throats on a daily basis, and are looking for a short cut to deal with it. Throwing all morals out the window and supporting a bigoted blow hard is not the answer, but it's easy to do with the right wing holier than thou beliefs of people who rely on Fox News and their pastors for their world views, who feel that it's all good and they can do no wrong cause they have Jesus on their side, which is pretty funny when you think about it considering Trump has made billions of dollars off of gambling and hiring illegal immigrants to work in his casinos.

    Truth stranger than fiction.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-05-2015, 12:19 PM
  2. Bernie sanders for president
    By Suicide King in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 04:56 PM
  3. California Propositions voting suggestions
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-23-2014, 08:10 AM
  4. Voting a player off table online
    By Sanlmar in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 10:53 PM
  5. Convicted molester lies about Bernie Fine molesting him
    By jsearles22 in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 09:30 AM