You hate Trump. That's all you got. You are still in denial of the long list of things Bush and Obama could not do in 16 years. Just keep hatin' and screamin' racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
You hate Trump. That's all you got. You are still in denial of the long list of things Bush and Obama could not do in 16 years. Just keep hatin' and screamin' racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Of course I hate Trump. I hated Obama, too, but it turns out that I didn’t really know the true definition of hate then.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Trump is a pox on America and mankind in general.
Maybe you just hate authority. Or you're just jealous and want to be "in charge" of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Or you're just a hater period.
Who in the heck did you vote for in 2016?
He has said in the past that she would have been much better for America. I don't really believe what he says, but it does serve his socialist agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I already said I voted for HRC. I did my part to try to stop this terrible human being from riding roughshod over what makes America great.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
https://media.giphy.com/media/Mir5fnHxvXrTa/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So, you're saying that high unemployment, high taxes, runaway guvmint spending, open borders, coddling up to commies and terrorists, huge trade imbalances, among other ills, is what makes America great. Okay....got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So you are a socialist loving, anti-women, pro more taxes, pro baby killing, anti-gun, anti-free speech, keep blacks on the plantation, intolerant,Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
George Soros One World Order, anti God/Christian and if fact hating, no borders elitist Liberal.
I could NEVER vote for any party or individual with that platform.
Anybody that voted for that evil woman is not in a position to sit in judgement of President Trump or anyone else. The fact that you are able to give her a pass on everything she’s done means you have no credibility whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Very true brtran.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
I don’t give her a pass. She is terrible. But she is magnitudes better than Trump, even if I am more aligned with his policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Trump derangement syndrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Trump derangement syndrome in overdrive!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You got an official diagnosis? Well, I suppose knowing is half the battle. Good luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD
IF Canada and the EU are really charging the types of tariffs Trump says they are, he is doing the right thing in protecting some American businesses from imports from their countries. If these figures are true, then Trump is the only real free trade guy in the room, and the only real "globalist" as well...because it's not globalism when 6 gang up on 1.
It would be nice to see a real piece of journalism instead of just opinion pieces from both tribes describing the real tariff situation. News is dead.
Free trade would be very globalist of him. Some of his base would be disappointed.
100% agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Trump's base is totally happy with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And least you forget Nov. 2016, I would believe these poll numbers vs. any liberal media spin numbers just to make them feel better. Oh, and the liberal and socialist media nor the DNC still hasn't learned a single thing yet.
TRUMP APPROVAL TOPS OBAMA AND REAGAN AT SAME TIME IN PRESIDENCY...
by Jim Hoft June 9, 2018
According to the latest FOX News poll President Donald Trump has a better rating than Presidents Obama and Reagan at the same point in their presidencies.
President Trump’s approval is now at 45%.
And that is with 90% negative coverage from the far left mainstream media.
President Trump – 45%
President Obama – 44%
President Reagan – 44%
On June 9, 2010 Barack Obama’s approval number was 46% on the Rasmussen poll.
President Trump’s approval number is at 47% according to Rasmussen today.
https://saintsreport.com/attachments...327-jpg.98575/
TRUMP APPROVAL RATING Better than Obama and Reagan at Same Point in their Presidencies
We subsidize domestic dairy so heavily that they dump tens of millions of overproduced milk every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
We also protect domestic agriculture by hitting import tobacco with 350% tariff and import peanuts at 150%. Similarly we put a 100% tariff on European chocolates and cheeses.
We protect US shoemakers with a 40 to 50% tariff on important shoes and we also use tariffs on other import clothing.
Trump has made it clear on many occasions that these tariffs are designed to make others play fair. The tariffs are not an end all to themselves, because he has stated many times that his goal is to have ALL unfair trade practices removed (protectionist tariffs by Canada and the EU, quotas by the EU, etc.). It appears that these tariffs, designed to protect American businesses from unfair trade practices are nothing more than retaliatory tariffs designed to bring the parties to the table to discuss REAL free trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
For that, CNN spouts that Trump is "starting a trade war".
When Canada says they will impose retaliatory tariffs on us because of Trump's tariffs because "they have to protect Canadian businesses" (gee, does that sound familiar?), the tribal news outlets and those inflicted with TDS cheer him on and get all giddy thinking he has just taught Trump a lesson on the world stage. They are so anti-Trump, they are anti-America. It doesn't matter to them that OUR businesses are being hurt by others' tariffs or that OUR middle class is shrinking because our manufacturing jobs are going away.
I have stated before that I believe Trump is using the wrong statistic when he says he wants to level out the trade deficit. I want us to have a trade deficit with every other country on the planet, because I want America to be so rich and successful that we have to import more to satisfy our ability to consume. I don't want to have a deficit because of unfair trade practices.
I don’t know if you just woke up and started paying attention to international trade the day Trump ran for office, but our tariffs on imports go way back. Agricultural tariffs have always been the stickiest because they are not just about jobs but they are also about food security. Well, at least you could make that case for dairy, not so much for tobacco.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
https://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs..._databases.htm
Don’t kid yourself. We are not about to do away with subsidies and agricultural tariffs. We are still interested in protecting American workers from paying back industries that throw their support behind our politicians.
That was supposed to be “tens of millions of gallons” and “imported” rather than “important.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Actually, I did not pay much attention to it at all. I did know that we subsidized unprofitable businesses (like windmills, solar panels and corn for ethanol), but I will readily admit I have not studied the entire trade policy of the US or anyone else. I have no plans to do that in the future either, but then again, I have no plans to check the equations the Federal Reserve used to decide if and when to raise interest rates. I am going to assume the economists analyzing the issues know what they are doing and hope they get it right (understanding that they have not always done so).Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I think I would support a "labor rate adjustment" tariff, but I have heard nothing about anything like that in any of these discussions. Sometimes, if a company moves you from a low cost state to a high cost state, they give you a cost of living adjustment so you kind of break even in your new market...seems like manufactured products should have that kind of adjustment as well. I didn't think it at the time, but old Ross Perot was right about that giant sucking sound once you started moving production from the US to low wage nations.
Now that I've gone to that web site, however, I am incensed that there is a 6.8% tariff on "live asses".
Free traders believe that those jobs that can be done for cheaper elsewhere should go elsewhere, even at the expense of today’s jobs. That is how “creative destruction” and “gains from trade” occur in an interdependent capitalist economy.
We want FAIR trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Just common sense regulations right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Depends.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
On what Hannity decides?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
It depends on whose common sense we're leaning on. Certainly rules out any and all libtards.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
On what Chris Mathews or Maddow tells you Guisslapp?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Have never watched them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I don't believe that for a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Wouldn’t recognize them even if I saw them in the flesh. Wouldn’t recognize their voice either.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
How about this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Weeping Rodman blasts Obama, says Kim was willing to talk 5 years ago
Weeping Dennis Rodman praises Trump's meeting with friend Kim Jong Un, blasts Obama for ignoring him
http://a57.foxnews.com/hp.foxnews.co....jpg?tl=1&ve=1'BRUSHED ME OFF'
Weeping Rodman blasts Obama, says Kim was willing to talk 5 years ago
Remember when Republicans opposed the idea of Obama talking to N. Korea?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I admit, I don't remember Republicans opposing obummer talking with NK. When and who specifically (which Repubs) opposed it?
Now....from my perspective, I agree obummer shouldn't have talked with NK, or anyone for that matter. obummer was (still is) a walking cluster-f**k. He is nothing but a puppet for the George Soros evil empire. So, in that regard, I wouldn't want obummer representing the US in any talks.
It is good we waited until we had a real POTUS again.
Right now...6:57 AM on June 12, CNN is making a big deal out of WH staffers taping together torn up documents. The piece is designed to make it look like President Trump, and his staff, are destroying incriminating evidence. Typical of CNN, and why it is a joke of network.
CNN says they will follow this story.... Of course they will! That way they won't have to waste air time on real news.
Obama was/is inept. No negotiation skills AT ALL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Read an article on that the other day. Funny that you thought they were suggesting he was hiding incriminating evidence. Probably influenced by your over indulgence in the propaganda cycle of the right where every action involves criminal motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
My take was that they weren’t suggesting something sinister at all. Rather the point was that this guy is too incompetent to understand basic rules and procedures.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aGcteItQWqcQuote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
October 26, 2008. Sean Hannity states, when indentifying his Number 2 reason (out of 10) for not voting for Obama:
“One of the most disturbing displays of Obama's lack of foreign policy expertise came during last year's YouTube debate," "The junior senator from Illinois gave what many called a naive answer for a question from the audience about whether he would meet with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea without preconditions."
obummer used an EO to open up our relations with Cuba. Personally, I have never understood why we treated Cuba differently than other commie dictatorships.
In general, I favor talking with anyone and everyone....including adversaries. You've heard the adage: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. So, I don't have a problem talking with anyone. Certainly, again in general, we should expect our POTUS to hold talks with other world leaders. Far better for them to be talking vs. gearing up our military for a war.
As for obummer….he is bad news. So, I am glad he never engaged in talks with NK. We saw how he told the world how wrong, how "bad," the US is. Trump takes the exact opposite view, "America First."
He refused. Remember Obama wasn't a leader, he was a follower from behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And the silent treatment doesn't work for countries and their leaders. Michelle must treat Hussein Barrack with the silent treatment. It hardly works with kindergarten kids.
That is fine, as long you recognize that the right wing (in general) opposed the idea of talking to dictators before Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
This is because the country couldn't trust Obama to play hardball with the world leaders. He is a pushover at negotiating and always played to "lead from behind". Nobody respected him across the world for this reason and would bulldoze him under (Iran). His only tactic was going silent or trying to ignore (never had the GOP leadership in the WH for years). He was a terrible listener and really didn't care because he thought he was the smartest man in the room. The fatal mistake every time on his part. The best he could do was try to undermine people, like a H.S. girl, and the Constitution by lying or deceit or just his "power of position" (like the Deep State). He was a terrible President and terrible negotiator and will got down in real history books as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That is revisionism. This was the conservative position in the 2008 election, well before you got on this crazy deep state conspiracy theory, when Obama supported engaging these countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
We've learned since then that many so called conservative Republicans were nothing more than DC establishment hacks. We showed in the 2016 election what we thought of that crooked bunch. No matter the label you try to put on President Trump, the truth is that he gets things done. He's gotten more accomplished in 510 days than Bush and Obama did in a combined 16 years. I don't for a minute think that you'll ever admit anything positive about him, but President Trump will go down one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And, within a year when all of Obozo's crooked crap comes out from under the rug....he will be shown for the crook that we know Obozo to be!!Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Hannity was one of the ring leaders of the “don’t talk to dictators” part of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Yep. I'm glad that Trump is trying diplomacy. I think it COULD yield good results. Meetings are better than wars. If Trump were a D or if Obama had done EXACTLY the same thing Trump just did, the right would be losing their mind about it (much like the left is now). The right's hypocrisy doesn't mean Trump is wrong (on this).Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I don’t disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Obama wasn't capable. He did NOTHING for 8 years
Well, if we consider deal making and restoring diplomatic relations with dictator-led countries wins, Obama did both with Iran and Cuba.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
There was also the finding and killing of all Al Qaeda and most of Isis leadership.
Iran was not a deal. It was a giveaway and kickback scheme. Cuba was one sided toward Cuba with some crumbs for US rice farmers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Ask the military how much support they got from Obama to help stop Al Qaeda and "isil".
What definition of “deal” excludes this:Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ic-republic-ir
It sounds like your impressions are overly informed by propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Exactly guys!Quote:
Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD
Iran? Nope. You might call it a "deal," but it was a bad deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Cuba? That was done with an EO and is very one-sided. But, I support normalizing relations with Cuba. Hopefully something good and lasting will come from this. If it does, history will give obummer some credit for starting the ball rolling. It will take some serious negotiations to make our relationship with Cuba mutually beneficial.
On killing terrorists....the truth is obummer coddled and protected moooslim terrorists. He REFUSED to arm the Kurds. He hamstrung our military, and by extension, our allies in the fight against terrorists. ALL THE SUCCESS enjoyed during obummer's tenure was in spite of, not because of, that POTUS. Our military disobeyed rules of engagement, and disobeyed the executive order to "not arm the Kurds, and to prevent the Kurds from acquiring military equipment and supplies." Fortunately, our guys on the ground in Iraq and then Syria, did not directly arm the Kurds, but they did look the other way as the Kurds captured equipment. Our military also purposely left captured equipment from ISIS, and abandoned equipment by the pansy Iraqi army (early on), where the Kurds could easily get to it. It was like Ooops! sorry, but the Kurds found some abandoned equipment....
ISIS had been neutralized militarily, mostly, under obummer's watch. That is the war had reached a stalemate on most fronts, but the US, and our allies, weren't making any progress either. This stalemate was due mostly THANKS TO THE KURDS! who did the heavy lifting, against the wishes of obummer!! If obummer had gotten his way, the war with ISIS would still be raging full tilt in Iraq, and forget Syria, it would have fallen by now. Because our military, on the ground, disobeyed obummer's orders, ISIS had been stymied. THEN!! when we again got a real POTUS....Bam! look how fast ISIS was rolled up, first in Iraq, and then in Syria!
obummer was a horrible president. Some say he's incompetent...and to a point, I agree. I agree because his edict, his marching orders, from his puppet masters was to destroy America. He tried, but he's so stupid, and luckily LAZY, that he accomplished very little toward that goal.
America is rolling again! Thanks to President Trump.
What deal did we just get with North Korea other than looking like equals with a barbaric regime. That was just embarrassing. Hannity would have crapped his pants if Obama did what Trump just did.
Hannity DID crap his pants when Obama said he was willing to talk to dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by beaux66
I like Hannity, and he's mostly right, most of the time. But on this issue I disagree. It's better to talk than to make ready for war. Even if nothing too tangible comes out of the talks, at least while they're talking we're not warring! (warring....is that a word?)
And, as I posted previously, I wouldn't trust obummer or his like (Krooked Killary) in such talks. They would give away the farm.
I am all for giving diplomacy a chance to work in Korea. We already know that war won't settle the issue.
George Washington spoke of the perils of foreign entanglements in his farewell address. It was true then, and it is true today. If the wars in Viet Nam and Iraq proved anything, they proved how useless our involvement in those wars was. In the end, the people of a nation always end up with the government they choose. Any government installed by a foreign power lasts only as long as that foreign power stays engaged with an occupying force. As soon as that occupying force is removed, things will resort back to whatever the people allow. For this reason I, for one, never want to see American troops fighting on the Korean peninsula ever again. If North Korea and South Korea ever reunite, it will be through the efforts of diplomacy or war between those two. Either way, it is the WILL of the Korean people that will determine their fate. Diplomacy is worth a try with North Korea, but a ground war should NEVER be an option that we consider. No more American lives should ever be lost over Korea's fate. We'll see if President Trump can make diplomacy work for a lasting peace in that region, but our occupying force needs to be removed no matter what.
All Obozo did was kiss their asses!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So far that is all Trump has done with NKorea.Quote:
Originally Posted by 70TECHGRAD
President Trump is trying a new approach with North Korea. Nothing any president before Trump did worked worth a crap with the them. Why not see if the president's new approach works? What have we got to lose? North Korea has already got nuclear weapons and inter-continental missiles, it's not like the guy can get become much more of a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
A de-nuclearized Korean peninsula sounds like a pretty good idea to most of us. You shouldn't allow your Trump Hate Derangement Syndrome to close your mind to such possibility.
I'm not against the diplomacy efforts. Guiss has indicated he isn't either. I think what's funny in all of this is the hypocrisy of the right. Can you imagine the reaction if Obama had said this about Ahmadinejad?Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOX News Report
But as we all knew then and been proven since, Obama couldn't be trusted and couldn't negotiate. Obama always stood up for the evil and wrong side IMHO and therefore gave them all they wanted and more without Congressional approval (Executive Order).Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
And again this is why Trump can so easily destroy the anti-American portions of the "Obama Legacy".
That is revisionism and not what the right wing media was arguing at the time. They (particularly FoxNews) were saying that talking to dictators who violate human rights was improper in the base case.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Yep, some, like Sean Hannity did take a "broad brush" stance on that issue, and he and they were wrong. THEY WERE WRONG! THEY WERE WRONG!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Although, actually, what they really meant was OBUMMER CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO TALK TO DICTATORS. That's the REAL TRUTH of Hannity's position then. And, you know that to be true as well. But, that is NOT what they said. So, again, Hannity was wrong for simply saying it was improper to talk to dictators. Hannity probably thought he'd catch more grief for singling out obummer, so he painted with a broad brush and said it was improper for any POTUS to talk to evil dictators.
But, looking strictly at what he actually said, he was wrong then. It's always a good idea to talk. Talking is better than allowing tensions to worsen that might lead to the start of a war. When tensions are high and both sides' militaries are on heightened alert an event, even an honest "oops," could lead to a shooting war.
Okay...so we agree, Sean Hannity was wrong on that particular issue. Let's find some agreement on the many, many, many times the lamestream media has been wrong. We can start with Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Syria, Krooked Killary's felonies, heck! let's go back to 2004 and the real cause of the mortgage crisis that led to the 2008 collapse of the economy. But, you won't, will ya?
That's okay. I know your real self.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Trump's was to take a quickly growing Nuke power (NK) totally off the table and to establish peace in that region. And I think he just might do it. Little Rocketman hasn't dared push the button in what 6 months since Trump put our great US Navy on his doorstep and slapped huge sanctions on them vs. Bill Clinton that gave N.K. billions$$ instead. Democrats always try to solve problems with money (education, the poor, dictator nations). Obama went in "dealing" with Iran with no such thoughts. In fact there was zero dealing or negotiating with Hillary and Kerry as his go to Sec. of State's (what a joke). All three Dems. loved throwing our taxpayer money toward crap like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And also thanks for bringing up the 2008 collapse. The lessons we learned from that one only lasted 10 years and now Trump, with the help of Congressional Republicans, have rolled back a few of the safeguards.
”Midsized” regional banks (those with capital assets between 50B and 250B) will no longer have to hold as much capital to cover losses on their balance sheets. They will not be required to have plans in place to be safely dismantled if they failed. And they will have to take the Fed's bank health test only periodically, not once a year.
The legislation also loosened regulations for mortgage lenders and change the rules for student loan defaults.
Community banks with less than $10 billion in assets will no longer have to comply with the Volcker Rule, which bars financial institutions from making risky bets with money that is insured by taxpayers.
That is completely wrong. The Iran deal was all about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons and provided us with a mechanism to make sure they were complying with their side of the deal. Before we exited the deal our experts said that Iran was complying.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Nope the "2008 collapse" was due to Dem's Pelosi and Dirty Harry Reid hammering on a weak President Bush to spend, spend, spend in 2006. Bush the Rhino caved to socialist liberal policies! And the country felt the wrath. In fact it was Bush and Condi hammering on Israel/Arial Sharon to move out of certain territories in 2006 which Israelites had owned and settled for 50+ years or more. That is what actually sealed America's fate. God's wrath and judgement on Bush and our country was quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That revisionism is not even close. 2008 was a banking collapse, not a government spending collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Btw, revisionism is the 9 o’clock position, so thanks for the opportunity to remind you of your unwitting participation in the neo right wing propaganda cycle.
https://images.google.com/imgres?img...ce=sh%2Fx%2Fim
:icon_roll::laugh:
I know this....the era of obummer with all the strict banking regs was beyond ridiculous. That is, in large measure, the very reason the economy was stagnant for 8 years. Banks, and other lenders have to be given some freedom to take some risks. Well, actually, in some cases there was practically no risk and still the bank couldn't finance the venture, due to the yoke of the stupid regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The Volcker Rules bars making "risky bets," you say? Hmmm...define "risky."
Yep, that's what I thought...
Point is, such decisions have got to be left to the lending institutions. Yeah, I understand those "risks" and because of that, I support limited guarantees. In fact, I have no problem making the lenders purchase private insurance to cover such "risks." Some, if not all, of that cost (the premiums) can be built into the cost of the loan to the borrower. This is done now re: SBA and USDA guaranteed loans. The borrower pays a little extra monthly to cover the guarantee, which is the same as an insurance policy for the lender.
So, wow! ya mean that TWO taxpayer-funded federal agencies can engage in some "risky" lending because of an insurance policy, yet the obummer administration issued EO's forbidding private lenders to utilize the exact same provision in loans not involving direct taxpayer funds!? Nope! again, obummer and his ilk were all about one thing, and one thing only, destroying America by destroying its institutions. Certainly the private banking industry is evil and must be destroyed!
And, I noticed you side-stepped the root cause of the mortgage crisis. Of course you did. Allow me to remind everyone, in this very brief historic overview...
Carter first issued an EO during his term that made such risky mortgages possible. No one acted on it, as it was strictly voluntary.
Klinton strengthened that policy, in 1996 I think it was, actually requiring lenders to build into their loan portfolios a percentage of such loans. But, there was "no teeth" in the order. No enforcement provision. So, lenders smartly said again....no thanks.
In 2002 Congress...the 'craps, led by Maxine Waters (that should have been a red flag that this was a stupid idea) held hearings and attacked lenders, big banks and others for being racists since minorities were under-represented in securing home loans. There were threats of monetary fines and penalties. The lenders decided that risk, of fines, was less than actually making stupid loans.
In 2004, Waters and her goofy gang, now joined by the junior senator from Illinois, obummer, were back for another round of hearings. This time, instead of wielding a stick, they presented a carrot. Go ahead and make risky loans (subprime) and if they default, the guvmint will bail you out. Freddie and Fannie had their charters altered, thanks in part to a Congressional edict, that would now allow them to support subprime lending. Bam! the genie was out of the bottle. The bankers said, "Let me get this straight. We can make loans to anyone and everyone, collect all those fees associated with making loans, and all those loans that default, you, Ms. Waters, and the Fed guvmint, will reimburse us for our losses?" YES! said Ms. Waters, now go out and make home loans!!!
Hello!
Was it the sub-prime fraction of the total 7 trillion total US mortgage debt that was the problem or was it the 45 trillion dollars worth of undercapitalized insurance products (CDSs) behind these loans that were further leveraged and traded that caused the crisis?
$45 trillion, that much? Whoa!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Anyway, none of this would have happened had Maxine Waters and her gang of morons not forced lenders into making bad loans in the first place. Whatever happened after that is irrelevant. As the attorney representing the industry, as a whole, said to the other Congressional idiots during those witch trials, motioning with his hand to indicate the bank CEOs, "these men are by far the smartest people in this room." He went on to say, that YOU, meaning Congress, forced them into this mess, and now you are mad when they took all those broken eggs and made omelettes.
I have watched documentaries and read tons of articles on this whole mess. The root cause was Maxine Waters et al. NONE of this would have happened if not for that crap pushed on the banks in 2004. That is a fact.
Nor would it had happened if these institutions weren’t allowed to make these hugely leveraged, risky side bets. That is what turned a small bubble into a collapse of the financial system. The actual bad mortgage debt was a small (a fraction of the 7 trillion), but when those failed and the side bets cost the institutions many magnitudes more than what the subprime debt amount that they overextended.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
There was a city in....Norway, I think....who invested everything they had, including their public employee pension fund, in those CDSs. They had dollar signs for eyeballs, and went for the higher risk/higher return deal. Terrible. That city was featured in one of the documentaries I saw. But, know what....I missed the part where someone put a gun to their head and made them do it.
Actually, I just recalled that those subprime loans began in 2003, even before the 2004 carrot deal. It wasn't wide spread, because most banks (lenders) wanted no part of 'em. I remember asking my mortgage banker about them. "Where can I get one of those subprime loans?" He glared at me, first, he said THIS bank won't be engaging in those. And secondly, you don't qualify anyway.
I thought "subprime" meant I could get a loan at a rate below the prime rate! Didn't make sense to me. Why would banks loan money at a rate lower than they paid to borrow money? Then I thought it meant the guvmint would make up the difference to the banks, if they would just loan money at next to nothing. Turns out, that was about what happened in the end. I couldn't qualify for a subprime loan because I was VERY PRIME. Credit score of 800+ and all of that. Glad I didn't qualify for a subprime loan!
There was some fellow in either Arizona or Nevada, whichever, who recognized the potential early on. He was among the first to launch one of those "mortgage originator" firms and got filthy rich. He made something like $50 million in 8-10 months. The guvmint and others went after him in the wake of the crisis. But he won every court case because he did nothing wrong....well, nothing against the law anyway. He's retired on some tropical island to this day.
GWB signed the change in charter for Freddie and Frannie into law. That was in 2004. What had been a mere trickle, and isolated, became a flood...a tsunami!
People, like those in the Norway city, willingly bought those products. Some of us knew better...after just a little research. I don't feel sorry for 'em. But I do blame Maxine Waters et al.
So, every news outlet reports, then retracts, but the false information is already out. Kind of like, “the jury will disregard statement by witness.”
How do we stop the misinformation highway?
Here's another retractment coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Top GOOGLE News Story: CNN Declares GOOGLE News Not 'Rigged'...
Shutting down the president’s twitter feed would be a good start. He is responsible for the most misinformation of any single source in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Retractions have always been part of the journalistic process. Getting news out fast is always at tension with accuracy. In this case, CNN reported what someone said and that person later changed their story. That isn’t on CNN, but on the person that changes their account. CNN did the responsible thing by putting out the update as soon as Cohen’s Attorney changed his story. In the case of public figures (even marginal ones like Cohen), it is entirely reasonable to report on what their appointed representatives (legal, media or otherwise) say. When reputable news sources like CNN get a lead from a non-official source they test it to see if they can corroborate it in any way before reporting it.
This journalistic method is superior to FoxNews which starts with an assumption and then makes a big splashy headline that something “may” be happening and then never retracts that the fundamental assumption was wrong.
It is even more superior to the President’s twitter feed that routinely spreads information that is known to be false or this administration’s practice of sending out SHS and other presidential spokespeople to deny that the sky is blue.
If you are really concerned about the misinformation that is out there, attacking a source of journalism that posts retractions is really not the place you should start.
https://i.imgur.com/V70gQTq.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnC0seSAYSg
:laugh: Didn't go as planned..
https://youtu.be/B359hCC3HQUQuote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
CNN is disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
More fake hurricane news and this time from CNN.
Another #fakenews video @CNN Anderson Cooper hypes #HurricaneFlorence flooding – meanwhile firefighters spoof TV news
Anthony Watts / 5 hours ago
Yesterday we reported on the hilarious antics of Mike Seidel of The Weather Channel in his performance trying to stand up in wind while others strolled casually by in the background. That video has gone viral. Here’s another example of how media tries to make the storm look worse than it actually was.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper was reporting live on the scene on a flooded road. And for effect, he stands in a ditch at the side of the road, about 3 feet lower.
https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.ne...d1-720x540.jpg
https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.ne...d2-720x427.jpg
Fortunately, somebody else was there to capture the CNN #fakenews event.
Yes the flooding was bad, but there’s no reason for antics like this. It just makes CNN looks even more untrustworthy than it already is.
No wonder trust in the news media is dropping.
Meanwhile, some firefighters had some fun spoofing “live on the scene reports”:
Another #fakenews video @CNN Anderson Cooper hypes #HurricaneFlorence flooding – meanwhile firefighters spoof TV news
More of CNN's Cooper BS like above.
CNN slammed as 'highly misleading,' 'irresponsible' after painting GOP activists as average voters
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Kanye West admits to his mental disorder. He admits to being diagnosed as bipolar. He claims he doesn’t treat it - and it is most likely for the same reason that many others don’t - many like the high and creative spark they feel like it gives them on the “up” part of the cycle.
Regardless of his politics someone needs to help him. And Trump is just taking advantage of him because he loves celebrities, especially if they love him.
I love the hysteria on the left. Shows how scared they are. For 60 years, at least, the democraps have used and abused African Americans for their own political (and thus power & wealth) gain. Too many blacks are slow to realize the totality of the damage done to them, others are clinging to "the devil you know," but there is also a movement in the black community away from the 'craps. Lightning rods like celebrities get the focus, but the true movement is quietly happening among middle-class blacks who know the truth.
Only someone who is projecting would say something so insulting and stupid as Trump is taking advantage of Mr. West. As if Mr. West is incapable of making decisions for himself and has fallen under the spell of Trump... wooooooo!
Every time a lib opens their mouths racism pours out.
He isn’t under the spell of Trump. He is literally off his meds.
But I also suspect his music would suck if he started taking them.
What's your diagnosis here?
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.c...-903066644.jpg
Are you serious???? The CEO of Papa John's is fired for using the N word in a role playing exercise, but you think it's OK for a panel on CNN to call Kanye a Negro, and mock his mental disorder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Look, there are millions of people that suffer from depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder including me. We don't not take our meds for creative highs. And you are an a**hole for even saying that, just like that panel on CNN. Any respect I have ever had for your dissenting opinions is gone. Just because you are a never Trumper doesn't give you the right to mock people. And people like you are the exact reason why someone who has always thought of themselves as a Democrat (but has voted both ways) is voting Red all the way.
And I hope and pray you never have to suffer through a life of depression and anxiety like millions of people do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigtoo30
I am not mocking Kanye. He has a bipolar diagnosis and doesn’t take his meds. That is not that unusual. He thinks his bipolar upswing gives him superhuman abilities (this is his own words). There are various reasons people don’t take their meds - I know there are various treatments and there isn’t a one size fits all treatment for bipolar disorder. I know these meds come with side effects, and they are particularly pronounced in patient populations. I know, personally, some that don’t think they need to take the meds when they are on an upswing as it “dulls” them and they feel fine during that time.
Doubling down on the double standard.:bomb: