Politics Thread

A little history and politics lesson Lou since you still can't comprehend.

The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act is what deregulated over the counter derivatives such as bundled mortgages. That is ultimately what led to the 2007-2009 crash. That act was passed by a full Republican Congress dumbass.

Now I'm not saying it was all the Republicans fault like you would, because I don't lay blame all on one side for out of context bullshit like you. Deregulation in the financial sector had been happening since the 70s. Both parties passed legislation to accomplish this. Both parties were at fault, as both of them got their dicks wet by high powered corporate lobbyists that scratch each others' backs to get things done and make all of them a ton of money.

You really need to stop it with the bullshit that one side is all good and the other is all bad. That is not how the real-world works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

A little history and politics lesson Lou since you still can't comprehend.

The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act is what deregulated over the counter derivatives such as bundled mortgages. That is ultimately what led to the 2007-2009 crash. That act was passed by a full Republican Congress dumbass.

Now I'm not saying it was all the Republicans fault like you would, because I don't lay blame all on one side for out of context bullshit like you. Deregulation in the financial sector had been happening since the 70s. Both parties passed legislation to accomplish this. Both parties were at fault, as both of them got their dicks wet by high powered corporate lobbyists that scratch each others' backs to get things done and make all of them a ton of money.

You really need to stop it with the bullshit that one side is all good and the other is all bad. That is not how the real-world works.

---

"There were many causes of the crisis, with commentators assigning different levels of blame to financial institutions, regulators, credit agencies, government housing policies, and consumers, among others.[5] Two proximate causes were the rise in subprime lending and the increase in housing speculation. The percentage of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated during a given year rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S."

And yes, ADAB.

So the SCOTUS will hear Trump's claim of immunity. This is a slippery slope that we've come to that I really wish we hadn't come to.

I know that many anti-Trumpers wanted the trial to happen before the election, but I don't think it matters. We seem to be at a point to where if the election were tomorrow I think the outcome would be exactly the same as it would be in November, and nothing that happens between now and then will really sway the outcome either way. Even if he went to jail, it wouldn't matter. People's minds are made up on where they stand in the Trump v Biden standoff, and no one is switching sides even if one of them goes to jail or if one of them is diagnosed with dementia.

...and I think he will win the election if he ends up running against Biden, which seems to be inevitable because Biden wants to run again and the Dems aren't going to nominate someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

A little history and politics lesson Lou since you still can't comprehend.

The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act is what deregulated over the counter derivatives such as bundled mortgages. That is ultimately what led to the 2007-2009 crash. That act was passed by a full Republican Congress dumbass.

Now I'm not saying it was all the Republicans fault like you would, because I don't lay blame all on one side for out of context bullshit like you. Deregulation in the financial sector had been happening since the 70s. Both parties passed legislation to accomplish this. Both parties were at fault, as both of them got their dicks wet by high powered corporate lobbyists that scratch each others' backs to get things done and make all of them a ton of money.

You really need to stop it with the bullshit that one side is all good and the other is all bad. That is not how the real-world works.

---

So, wrong again... LOL!

I love how you love to pass yourself off as an expert on every single topic that comes up on this board. But it's all bluster and bullshit.

The Rick Broering debacle a couple of weeks ago was simply classic! You spent several days bashing Rick for an article he wrote - that you CLEARLY DIDN'T READ. But damn, you knew for sure that what he wrote was all bullshit. The kicker was that 94 asked you point blank on multiple occasions whether you read the article or not. You slithered around those questions like a true Democrat politician. But it was clear to anyone with a half brain that you were presenting yourself as a witness to the crime, but in reality you didn't have a fucking clue as to what you were taking about.

You were lying.

The Supreme Court HAS to rule 9-0 on this, they HAVE to reject his claim of immunity, and they HAVE to reject it on the narrowest grounds possible. Should be fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

The Supreme Court HAS to rule 9-0 on this, they HAVE to reject his claim of immunity, and they HAVE to reject it on the narrowest grounds possible. Should be fun!

---

I agree, but isn't it concerning that they're even deciding to hear it??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

"There were many causes of the crisis, with commentators assigning different levels of blame to financial institutions, regulators, credit agencies, government housing policies, and consumers, among others.[5] Two proximate causes were the rise in subprime lending and the increase in housing speculation. The percentage of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated during a given year rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S."

And yes, ADAB.

---

You just quoted something that is a general cause because you have no idea what happened and had to google it, but what I wrote was the actual nail in the coffin. So, yes like I figured, you don't understand.

Speaking of bluster and bullshit.....

Your act has become stale. You source facts like your chart and then take it out of context with bluster and bullshit Newsmax/Truth social talking points. Get a new hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xubrew

I agree, but isn't it concerning that they're even deciding to hear it??

---

They have to hear it. Too important.

Amazing that there is even a question worth deciding that a president can be immune from the illegal act of attempting to stop the transfer of power as laid out in the constitution.

There may be a question of fact (did he or did he not try to stop the transfer) but the question of law (is he immune if they find he did try) should never have been heard. The appellate court answered that clearly in their decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

So, wrong again... LOL!

I love how you love to pass yourself off as an expert on every single topic that comes up on this board. But it's all bluster and bullshit.

The Rick Broering debacle a couple of weeks ago was simply classic! You spent several days bashing Rick for an article he wrote - that you CLEARLY DIDN'T READ. But damn, you knew for sure that what he wrote was all bullshit. The kicker was that 94 asked you point blank on multiple occasions whether you read the article or not. You slithered around those questions like a true Democrat politician. But it was clear to anyone with a half brain that you were presenting yourself as a witness to the crime, but in reality you didn't have a fucking clue as to what you were taking about.

You were lying.

---

Lying about what, Lou? That his article was nonsense, which was confirmed on Monday when he did his podcast? He came out with a very different story on Monday than what he wrote in the article. He knew what he was doing, and I'm sure it worked. However, please try to stay on task