(07-12-2016 03:07 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 02:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 02:55 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  A cafe latte will soothe those cucks.

Once again I don't know the cool kid lingo. What is cucks?

It's short for cuckold. For some reason, people are describing leftist/socialist types as cucks. Kinda dumb IMHO. Clearly they are vampires. Therefore, some kind of catchy nickname based around "Twilight" would be apropo - like "Twinkles" or "Twinkies"...

Cucks still drain bodily fluid. Description fits, bud.

(07-12-2016 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't feel betrayed.

And Bernie voters aren't going to vote for Trump, so it's of little consequence if they vote for Stein or stay home. The ones who are regular voters will vote for Hillary for the most part.

How do you square the fact that Bernie was anti-greed and railed against investment banks vs Hillary and her close ties to the investment banking community? Serious question, just curious.

I'm not a one or even two or three (or more) issue voter. There is no perfect candidate for any political ideology.

Fair enough. What policy issues do you see with Hillary that outweighs the tight links to Wall Street and Investment banking? Is it fair to say that civil liberties are more important to you than the economy? Based on the relationship Hillary has with this portion of the economy, it's unlikely that she would be able to remain objective with this group. And let's face it - investment banking is a CRITICAL portion of the economy.

(07-13-2016 07:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't feel betrayed.

And Bernie voters aren't going to vote for Trump, so it's of little consequence if they vote for Stein or stay home. The ones who are regular voters will vote for Hillary for the most part.

How do you square the fact that Bernie was anti-greed and railed against investment banks vs Hillary and her close ties to the investment banking community? Serious question, just curious.

I'm not a one or even two or three (or more) issue voter. There is no perfect candidate for any political ideology.

Fair enough. What policy issues do you see with Hillary that outweighs the tight links to Wall Street and Investment banking? Is it fair to say that civil liberties are more important to you than the economy? Based on the relationship Hillary has with this portion of the economy, it's unlikely that she would be able to remain objective with this group. And let's face it - investment banking is a CRITICAL portion of the economy.

While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

And while not a complete fan, our current system seems to actually be keeping us afloat quite nicely in a very onerous world of economic uncertainty. At this time, I feel H is likely the best to not upset the apple cart so to speak. I think Trump or Johnson would cause a huge rift to our economy.

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

Actually prosecuting Wall Streeters when they commit crimes would be a good start, don't you think? There was tremendous public goodwill toward that cause when ya boy took office. Instead, he decided to bring in a Wall Street lackey who explicitly told Wall Street they could break the law without fear of being convicted. Prosecutors recommended bringing criminal charges, and he said no. And that is a decision you supported.

Redwingtom Wrote:And while not a complete fan, our current system seems to actually be keeping us afloat quite nicely in a very onerous world of economic uncertainty. At this time, I feel H is likely the best to not upset the apple cart so to speak. I think Trump or Johnson would cause a huge rift to our economy.

If you had applied that logic eight years ago, you'd have been a McCain voter. So you'll vote for Hillary because, at best, we might keep muddling along for eight more years?

(07-13-2016 09:49 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

Actually prosecuting Wall Streeters when they commit crimes would be a good start, don't you think? There was tremendous public goodwill toward that cause when ya boy took office. Instead, he decided to bring in a Wall Street lackey who explicitly told Wall Street they could break the law without fear of being convicted. Prosecutors recommended bringing criminal charges, and he said no. And that is a decision you supported.

When did I ever support that decision? I'm pretty sure I did then, as I certainly do now, support prosecuting Wall Streeters for any crimes.

(07-13-2016 09:49 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Redwingtom Wrote:And while not a complete fan, our current system seems to actually be keeping us afloat quite nicely in a very onerous world of economic uncertainty. At this time, I feel H is likely the best to not upset the apple cart so to speak. I think Trump or Johnson would cause a huge rift to our economy.

If you had applied that logic eight years ago, you'd have been a McCain voter. So you'll vote for Hillary because, at best, we might keep muddling along for eight more years?

What? Our economy was in the absolute tank when Obama was running against McCain. Why would I have voted for the Bush status quo?

(07-13-2016 10:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:49 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

Actually prosecuting Wall Streeters when they commit crimes would be a good start, don't you think? There was tremendous public goodwill toward that cause when ya boy took office. Instead, he decided to bring in a Wall Street lackey who explicitly told Wall Street they could break the law without fear of being convicted. Prosecutors recommended bringing criminal charges, and he said no. And that is a decision you supported.

When did I ever support that decision? I'm pretty sure I did then, as I certainly do now, support prosecuting Wall Streeters for any crimes.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-606718-post-868...pid8687479

Redwingtom Wrote:

(07-13-2016 09:49 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

Redwingtom Wrote:And while not a complete fan, our current system seems to actually be keeping us afloat quite nicely in a very onerous world of economic uncertainty. At this time, I feel H is likely the best to not upset the apple cart so to speak. I think Trump or Johnson would cause a huge rift to our economy.

If you had applied that logic eight years ago, you'd have been a McCain voter. So you'll vote for Hillary because, at best, we might keep muddling along for eight more years?

What? Our economy was in the absolute tank when Obama was running against McCain. Why would I have voted for the Bush status quo?

So why would you vote for another Bush term now?

There are festering sores all over the current economy that are visible to anyone who isn't willfully ignorant, and we are already historically overdue for a recession. The primary reason we aren't technically in one already is because of people being forced to spend more on healthcare. More than 1/4 of Americans can't afford to go shopping anymore. Nearly 1/5 of households don't have a single employed person. Median household income is around the same as it was in 1996. Obama will be the first president in history to not see 3% GDP growth in a single year. Quite frankly, the economy still sucks for most people. "We'll hopefully keep sputtering along" is not exactly an inspiring cry for your camp.

If the status quo is good enough, then why were you a Bernie supporter? You are just desperately trying to justify your support of someone who represents most of what you claim to dislike about Republicans.

They should feel that way because they were.

Bernie has shown himself to be as dishonest as the rest of them.

(07-13-2016 10:51 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 10:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:49 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

Actually prosecuting Wall Streeters when they commit crimes would be a good start, don't you think? There was tremendous public goodwill toward that cause when ya boy took office. Instead, he decided to bring in a Wall Street lackey who explicitly told Wall Street they could break the law without fear of being convicted. Prosecutors recommended bringing criminal charges, and he said no. And that is a decision you supported.

When did I ever support that decision? I'm pretty sure I did then, as I certainly do now, support prosecuting Wall Streeters for any crimes.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-606718-post-868...pid8687479

Yes, on that one issue, I felt it was prudent to take the money as I didn't see that particular case as having a clear cut positive outcome should it go to trial. In that one case, taking the money was the proper thing to do in my opinion. But no, that does not mean that I don't want them punished for crimes. Sorry for not making that more clear at that time.

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 07:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't feel betrayed.

And Bernie voters aren't going to vote for Trump, so it's of little consequence if they vote for Stein or stay home. The ones who are regular voters will vote for Hillary for the most part.

How do you square the fact that Bernie was anti-greed and railed against investment banks vs Hillary and her close ties to the investment banking community? Serious question, just curious.

I'm not a one or even two or three (or more) issue voter. There is no perfect candidate for any political ideology.

Fair enough. What policy issues do you see with Hillary that outweighs the tight links to Wall Street and Investment banking? Is it fair to say that civil liberties are more important to you than the economy? Based on the relationship Hillary has with this portion of the economy, it's unlikely that she would be able to remain objective with this group. And let's face it - investment banking is a CRITICAL portion of the economy.

While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

And while not a complete fan, our current system seems to actually be keeping us afloat quite nicely in a very onerous world of economic uncertainty. At this time, I feel H is likely the best to not upset the apple cart so to speak. I think Trump or Johnson would cause a huge rift to our economy.

So why did you prefer Bernie? Aside from Wallstreet and emailgate they have the same platforms.

(07-13-2016 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 10:51 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 10:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:49 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

Actually prosecuting Wall Streeters when they commit crimes would be a good start, don't you think? There was tremendous public goodwill toward that cause when ya boy took office. Instead, he decided to bring in a Wall Street lackey who explicitly told Wall Street they could break the law without fear of being convicted. Prosecutors recommended bringing criminal charges, and he said no. And that is a decision you supported.

When did I ever support that decision? I'm pretty sure I did then, as I certainly do now, support prosecuting Wall Streeters for any crimes.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-606718-post-868...pid8687479

Yes, on that one issue, I felt it was prudent to take the money as I didn't see that particular case as having a clear cut positive outcome should it go to trial. In that one case, taking the money was the proper thing to do in my opinion. But no, that does not mean that I don't want them punished for crimes. Sorry for not making that more clear at that time.

Oh, but a positive outcome was very much within reach.

Quote:Eric Holder has long insisted that he tried really hard when he was attorney general to make criminal cases against big banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. His excuse, which he made again just last month, was that Justice Department prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to bring charges.

Many critics have long suspected that was bull****, and that Holder, for a combination of political, self-serving, and craven reasons, held his department back.

A new, thoroughly-documented report from the House Financial Services Committee supports that theory. It recounts how career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no.

Quote:The report — the result of a three-year investigation — shows that aggressive attorneys did want to prosecute HSBC, but Holder overruled them.

In September 2012, the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) formally recommended that HSBC be prosecuted for its numerous financial crimes.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/12/eric...nd-burned/

(07-13-2016 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 07:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-12-2016 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't feel betrayed.

And Bernie voters aren't going to vote for Trump, so it's of little consequence if they vote for Stein or stay home. The ones who are regular voters will vote for Hillary for the most part.

How do you square the fact that Bernie was anti-greed and railed against investment banks vs Hillary and her close ties to the investment banking community? Serious question, just curious.

I'm not a one or even two or three (or more) issue voter. There is no perfect candidate for any political ideology.

Fair enough. What policy issues do you see with Hillary that outweighs the tight links to Wall Street and Investment banking? Is it fair to say that civil liberties are more important to you than the economy? Based on the relationship Hillary has with this portion of the economy, it's unlikely that she would be able to remain objective with this group. And let's face it - investment banking is a CRITICAL portion of the economy.

While I hate the control Wall Street has on our country and our political leaders, no president is going to be able to elicit any effective change to it...so that's not really an issue I even waste much time on.

And while not a complete fan, our current system seems to actually be keeping us afloat quite nicely in a very onerous world of economic uncertainty. At this time, I feel H is likely the best to not upset the apple cart so to speak. I think Trump or Johnson would cause a huge rift to our economy.

Basically, you're hoping for a 3rd term of Bill Clinton? I highly doubt that it happens, because I think Hillary is a different animal than Bill. I would not blame you if you are hoping for BC part 3, because despite his rhetoric he was a pragmatist (more of a corrupt opportunist) that would not upset the applecart of the economy. With Hillary's sharp left turn, I fear she would do much damage. She is definitely left of her husband.