Support NeoGAF

[giga]

I don't care if daily accountings are hard. They were meant to be punitive.

They are punitive for SIFIs. There's no need to be punitive to actors who had no hand in the crisis and are unlikely to pose any future risk.

 

[kirblar]

I don't care if daily accountings are hard. They were meant to be punitive.

Everyone loses when you waste people's time money and resources.

 

[DragonSworne]

The mental gymnastics you would have to go through daily to rationalize going from Sanders to Trump must be exhausting.

It wouldn't be that hard if your main issue with Hillary is that she is a woman. Then it would be quite easy to go from Bernie to Trump.

 

[jack_package_200]

Boom. Couldn't have said it better myself.

If ideological purity is more important to you than ensuring progressive policies and laws that protect the disadvantaged stay in place for the next 20+ years, then you don't get to claim you care about the people you supposedly care so much about.

This. All of this

 

[gcubed]

Biggest clusterfuck of stupidity in a thread in a while, but not surprised after seeing who the OP was

 

[Noirulus]

Even the Republicans who went as far as to question the head of the FBI to find out why Hillary wasn't in jail yet gave zero fucks about these speeches.

That says it all really.

Do you know how stupid that sounds? It's like questioning if Obama's really born in the US since he didn't release his long form birth certificate when first asked. Or you know, Sanders' tax returns.

Incidentally, if you actually have any proof that she's under the thumb of financial firms, I'd like to see it.

Pssst.

You can find at least one of these speeches on YouTube. The whole speech was uploaded.

You know what it was? Fucking nothing. Bullshit inspirational speaker 'rah-rah' stuff.

If it's nothing and the speeches were innocent, good. I'd like them to be. I think she's by far the better candidate, but based on lies (about other issues) she's told before as well as the various scandals under her name, I don't believe her to be a genuine person.

 

[mlclmtckr]

What do people think Clinton said in those speeches?

"Fellow illuminati, the takeover of the world government is almost complete! Let's continue to fleece the poors and line our pockets. Can someone pass the fried swan and unicorn steaks?"

 

[hawk2025]

If it's nothing and the speeches were innocent, good. I'd like them to be. I think she's by far the better candidate, but based on lies (about other issues) she's told before as well as the various scandals under her name, I don't believe her to be a genuine person.

Especially when she sabotages reporters on-air and creates "technical difficulties", am I right?

Biggest clusterfuck of stupidity in a thread in a while, but not surprised after seeing who the OP was

I've been thoroughly critical of the OP's obvious agenda for a while, but in this case you can see from the beginning people were riled up before making even a small effort to understand the extremely simple nuance of the issue. And the same goes for the original HuffPo piece.

Yeah, Team Alucard did his thing, but people see red the second "bank" comes up.

 

[Blader]

I'm sure if the speeches were that innocent, she would have released them long ago and used it to support her platform.

The language of those speeches includes phrases like "my banking friends" (as, duh, that's who she's speaking to; how often do you denigrate your audience when giving a presentation?), choice lines that can be ripped out of context and used against her.

And as this thread is proving quite well, imaginary optics can have a bigger impact on people than actual content.

The mental gymnastics you would have to go through daily to rationalize going from Sanders to Trump must be exhausting.

Particularly when Bernie himself has excoriated Trump repeatedly.

 

[metalslimer]

What do people think Clinton said in those speeches?

"Fellow illuminati, the takeover of the world government is almost complete! Let's continue to fleece the poors and line our pockets. Can someone pass the fried swan and unicorn steaks?"

I don't understand why people would think that she would say something so damaging even in a speech to a bank. She probably gave them some praise, but as a politician she never would have said something damaging when some random employee could blab to the news

 

[diaspora]

If it's nothing and the speeches were innocent, good. I'd like them to be. I think she's by far the better candidate, but based on lies (about other issues) she's told before as well as the various scandals under her name, I don't believe her to be a genuine person.

lol so you don't actually care how progressive she is in the end.

 

[Iksenpets]

What do people think Clinton said in those speeches?

"Fellow illuminati, the takeover of the world government is almost complete! Let's continue to fleece the poors and line our pockets. Can someone pass the fried swan and unicorn steaks?"

Right, have you ever been to a corporate speaking event? It's all fluff. She superstars them because I'm the course of speaking a fluff piece at a bank, she probably said vapid little things along the line of "the financial sector plays an important role in the American economy and contributes positively to society" which are utterly meaningless but wouldn't have played well in the primary, as exemplified by people being outraged that financial reporting standards aren't being designed with maximum onerousness as their primary objective.

 

[Deku Tree]

Clinton should pull a GWB and appoint someone who the right would consider to be a huge "dr. Evil commie". Someone like Bernie or Warren.

 

[hawk2025]

By the way, this thread is a fantastic explanation for why the transcripts haven't been released.


Y'all would blow a gasket the minute she said "and the financial sector plays an important role" or calls the audience "friends" or "hard working".

 

[Noirulus]

lol so you don't actually care how progressive she is in the end.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

The language of those speeches including phrases like "my banking friends" (as, duh, that's who she's speaking to; how often do you denigrate your audience when giving a presentation?), choice lines that can be ripped out of context and used against her.

And as this thread is proving quite well, imaginary optics can have a bigger impact on people than actual content.

That's definitely true.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Hmm seems like the article overstated the implications of Kaine's letters. Doesn't seem like bank de-regulation so much as re-organizing how it's handled. Might not be interpreting the thread correctly though as it's seem to be hard to parse.

 

[JustenP88]

Eh, not a good look. Any residual effects from this probably wouldn't stick too long, but I'd still rather see her move on. We're not that desperate in Virginia, right?

 

[pigeon]

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

I assume he read your posts, where you made a bunch of claims about caring about banks and banking regulations but eventually retreated to the position that it was obvious from the start you really held -- that you don't want Clinton to win because fundamentally you just don't like her.

 

[Maxim726X]

If it's nothing and the speeches were innocent, good. I'd like them to be. I think she's by far the better candidate, but based on lies (about other issues) she's told before as well as the various scandals under her name, I don't believe her to be a genuine person.

Look, I totally get that people don't find her genuine. I don't either, and she has been caught lying more times than I can count.

But there are specific complaints levied against her that are demonstratively false. In fairness to honest discussion, these should be regarded as such.

 

[BillWalton]

So much freaking out about a pick that is essentially Joe Biden 2.0. Likable, moderate, and qualified (probably less creepy shoulder rubs though).
Oh no, the Clinton ticket is now the most qualified of all-time. The horror.

 

[Makai]

oh we're back to recognizing that kaine is the frontrunner instead of delusionally falling for a puff piece about a random military admiral or pinning our hopes or perez or castro? cool. thanks for joining me in reality.

Resisting urge to dredge up past posts about frontrunners.

jk, obviously she was going with the boring pick.

 

[TheCrow]

Is it just me or does anyone else think she'd release the transcripts in exchange for Donald's tax returns?

 

[Blader]

So much freaking out about a pick that is essentially Joe Biden 2.0. Likable, moderate, and qualified (probably less creepy shoulder rubs though).
Oh no, the Clinton ticket is now the most qualified of all-time. The horror.

And can speak Spanish fluently!

I feel like that does not get enough attention.

 

[diaspora]

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

vvv

I assume he read your posts, where you made a bunch of claims about caring about banks and banking regulations but eventually retreated to the position that it was obvious from the start you really held -- that you don't want Clinton to win because fundamentally you just don't like her.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Is it just me or does anyone else think she'd release the transcripts in exchange for Donald's tax returns?

No way. She's not going to let that kind of precedent happen. It's a completely ridiculous request that she'll never go along with and never grant any legitimacy to whatsoever.

 

[StoOgE]

I don't care if daily accountings are hard. They were meant to be punitive.

No, they weren't.

They are designed to give federal regulators (primarily the FRBNY in this instance) more view as to how the banks risk looks. These reports are largely information overload for the banks. It's similar to Bluesheet and OATS reporting violations from FINRA (who I used to work for as well in market regulation). Most fines related to these reports are not actual trading violations, but reporting issues (i.e. wrong format, missing some diminimus number of child orders, etc)

The regulations passed in Dodd Frank are good regulations, but in many cases they are overly arduous and not overly useful. When I was at FINRA we actually would ask the firm for their daily tape reports and then look at OATS/COATS/TRACE/ACT to try and match trades because the reporting apparatus makes identifying orders difficult. Which is why the CAT is being designed as a corrective measure.

Regulation is not about being punitive in nature. It is about giving regulators the tools they need to detect actual systemic risk to a bank, unfair market practices or fraud. It is not to keep banks from doing their core operations, and instances of tweaking regulations to better fit their intended design is good policy.

Bad optics or not.

 

[remist]

Since it's clear you don't understand the policy, why would you imagine you understand the principle?

Consider the possibility that an unhelpful regulation that accomplishes nothing makes it harder to pass actually meaningful regulations that will help protect us.



The Democrats successfully backed somebody who wasn't a white nationalist.

My expectation is that you're able to do the same.

If you're not, I guess that's good to know.

I said I have no problem with this specific policy just the sentiment expressed in the letter.

“This distinction is applied unevenly across regional institutions despite similar risk profiles, simply by virtue of an asset threshold,”

I usually have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils but Hillary crosses the line for me in terms of dishonesty and poor judgement. Ill be voting straight democratic in local elections.

 

[exmachina64]

As a former regulatory liason for two giant banks, it's a good change of the rule.

Daily liquidity calculations are super arduous, cost lots of money, are not horribly accurate and don't offer much view into the bank that monthly calcs would provide.

But the optics of this are horrid because most americans are just going to see "going easy on wall st"

Thank you.

Going to quote this. I think we have to stop and look and realize that not everything that helps a bank is EVIL

Yep.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I said I have no problem with this specific policy just the sentiment expressed in the letter.

I usually have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils but Hillary crosses the line for me in terms of dishonesty and poor judgement. Ill be voting straight democratic in local elections.

I'm confused as to... what exactly is incredibly objectionable in that sentence.
Maybe it's in the context.

 

[StoOgE]

I usually have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils but Hillary crosses the line for me in terms of dishonesty and poor judgement. Ill be voting straight democratic in local elections.

A largely depository bank no matter the assets under management poses far less risk than a much smaller re-insurance bank transacting in OTC swap derivatives.

His statement is fair.

"Hey, don't spend so much time on the giant lumbering boring bank when this smaller guy might have greater systemic risk"

 

[Noirulus]

I assume he read your posts, where you made a bunch of claims about caring about banks and banking regulations but eventually retreated to the position that it was obvious from the start you really held -- that you don't want Clinton to win because fundamentally you just don't like her.

There are more than a few good reasons why someone wouldn't like Clinton. I do agree that she's far better than her opposition when it comes to climate change, minimum wage, etc. and she's obviously a better candidate than trump.

However, you probably already understand that presidential nominees often promise many things and don't necessarily fulfill all or even most of them when they turn president. I believe Obama only fulfilled something like 40% of his promises, and IMO he's a far more genuine politician. So it's hard to believe Hillary even if her platform is sound.

Of course, it could work in her favor too and everyone who dislikes her could turn out to be wrong, because she does seem to have more backbone than Obama and could actually accomplish her promises.

Time will tell

 

[hawk2025]

I said I have no problem with this specific policy just the sentiment expressed in the letter.

I usually have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils but Hillary crosses the line for me in terms of dishonesty and poor judgement. Ill be voting straight democratic in local elections.

It may be helpful to stop declaring your vote in every single post if you "wish the people trying to guilt people into voting for hillary would save some blame for the party establishment for backing such a terrible candidate."

Guilt can only come from yourself.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[pigeon]

I usually have no problem voting for the lesser of two evils but Hillary crosses the line for me in terms of dishonesty and poor judgement. Ill be voting straight democratic in local elections.

Okay.

So, to be clear, your firm position is that you are fine with allowing a white nationalist to take over America because of your strong feelings on email servers. If I disagree with that, I am "guilting you."

 

[Iksenpets]

No way. She's not going to let that kind of precedent happen. It's a completely ridiculous request that she'll never go along with and never grant any legitimacy to whatsoever.

I could actually see her releasing them as soon as Trump tries to make a big deal out of it. She's out of the primary where they'd have harmed her, and Trump will look like an idiot when he tries to make a huge thing out of them and they're harmless. But until then, best not to release in order to lure Trump into the trap.

 

[HK-47]

Okay.

So, to be clear, your firm position is that you are fine with allowing a white nationalist to take over America because of your strong feelings on email servers. If I disagree with that, I am "guilting you."

What about what happened to poor Ben Ghazi?

 

[RPGCrazied]

I don't care who she picks. I'm now at a point where I have to vote for her to stop Trump. I do not want him anywhere near the white house.

 

[manakel]

Here's the deal. You can not claim to care about Progressivism in this country and simultaneously threaten to vote third party during an election where the fate of the cause will be decided for the next several decades. There is no third option here. Your frustration does not change this. Your dislike of Hillary and/or her VP pick does not change this.

I don't particularly care about arguing with other people about what to do with their vote. Vote Green or Libertarian or Working Families or Constitution Party. Just stop grandstanding, and stop acting like these issues actually matter to you when you're willing to consign your vote on them to irrelevancy.

Here's the deal. There are other candidates out there that fully support progressive issues that I align with such as human rights, climate change, and marriage equality who aren't Hillary Clinton. You trying to equate someone voting for a more progressive candidate means they are cosigning their vote to irrelevancy is seriously laughable. I'm sorry it's so hard to wrap your head around people choosing candidates who align with their beliefs more than others. I love how we love to give off the notion that you can vote for whoever you want as long as you get out and vote.. yet so many people get up and arms if it isn't their candidate.

With that being said, Supreme Court Justice seats are a huge deal and that is the only reason I'm still inclined to vote for Hillary in November. Picking this guy, as other people have said, will further tarnish her image of being tight with Wall Street and it makes it harder to support someone like that. Sorry about it.

 

[diaspora]

Here's the deal. There are other candidates out there that fully support progressive issues that I align with such as human rights, climate change, and marriage equality who aren't Hillary Clinton. You trying to equate someone voting for a more progressive candidate means they are cosigning their vote to irrelevancy is seriously laughable. I'm sorry it's so hard to wrap your head around people choosing candidates who align with their beliefs more than others. I love how we love to give off the notion that you can vote for whoever you want as long as you get out and vote.. yet so many people get up and arms if it isn't their candidate.

With that being said, Supreme Court Justice seats are a huge deal and that is the only reason I'm still inclined to vote for Hillary in November. Picking this guy, as other people have said, will further tarnish her image of being tight with Wall Street and it makes it harder to support someone like that. Sorry about it.

Her image? Her fucking image? The actual thing that Kaine is talking about is some of the most innocuous shit imaginable, if it tarnishes her image it'll be only with people too dumb to dress themselves in the goddamn morning.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

The VP barely does anything. I would rather keep the power players like Warren in the Senate and have Stavridis be SoS or something. Kaine is a perfectly acceptable VP who can help lock up Virginia, speaks fluent spanish, and can help with blue collar white men.

I'm pretty sure Trump-Pence have other plans, if Kasich's advisor(first choice for VP) is in indication. The VP would be in-charge of Domestic and Foreign Policy, while Trump will be busy apparently, uh, "making America great again".

 

[JP_]

Here's the deal. There are other candidates out there that fully support progressive issues that I align with such as human rights, climate change, and marriage equality who aren't Hillary Clinton. You trying to equate someone voting for a more progressive candidate means they are cosigning their vote to irrelevancy is seriously laughable. I'm sorry it's so hard to wrap your head around people choosing candidates who align with their beliefs more than others. I love how we love to give off the notion that you can vote for whoever you want as long as you get out and vote.. yet so many people get up and arms if it isn't their candidate.

With that being said, Supreme Court Justice seats are a huge deal and that is the only reason I'm still inclined to vote for Hillary in November. Picking this guy, as other people have said, will further tarnish her image of being tight with Wall Street and it makes it harder to support someone like that. Sorry about it.

Would voting for Jill Stein help or hurt Trump's chances of being elected?

 

[Blader]

There are more than a few good reasons why someone wouldn't like Clinton. I do agree that she's far better than her opposition when it comes to climate change, minimum wage, etc. and she's obviously a better candidate than trump.

However, you probably already understand that presidential nominees often promise many things and don't necessarily fulfill all or even most of them when they turn president. I believe Obama only fulfilled something like 40% of his promises, and IMO he's a far more genuine politician. So it's hard to believe Hillary even if her platform is sound.

Of course, it could work in her favor too and everyone who dislikes her could turn out to be wrong, because she does seem to have more backbone than Obama and could actually accomplish her promises.

Time will tell

You have that backwards.

As Bernstein notes, political-science research backs this up: Jeff Fishel of American University wrote a book called Presidents and Promises in which he found that, from Kennedy to Reagan, presidents almost always try to keep their campaign commitments. Gerald Pomper of Rutgers tracked party platforms from 1944-1976 and found that two-thirds of the winning candidate’s policy pledges were at least partly fulfilled after four years. Michael Krukones of Bellarmine College wrote a book, Promises and Performance, arguing that presidents from Wilson to Carter kept about three-quarters of their campaign promises.

Politifact is a Pulitzer Prize-winning website put together by the Tampa Bay Times. Since 2009, it has tracked President Obama’s promises and how much progress has been made turning them into action. It found that Obama has been able to deliver on about 70 percent of his 2008 and 2012 campaign promises (either by achieving exactly what he wanted or accepting half a loaf through compromise). 22 percent of his promises are “broken,” almost all of which fall into the category of blocked-by-the-Republicans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/promises-promises/485981/

And usually when a nominee breaks a campaign promise as president, it's because of Congressional action working against them, not because they're a two-faced liar that tricked you.

This is why things like "Trump will be different as president" or "He's only saying crazy things to win the primary" are so dangerous. Trump is going to try and do as president exactly what he's running on.

Here's the deal. There are other candidates out there that fully support progressive issues that I align with such as human rights, climate change, and marriage equality who aren't Hillary Clinton.

Here's the deal. Those people aren't going to win this election and decide the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation. Hillary and Trump will.

Hillary may not be everything you want in a progressive, but without her justices, SCOTUS will cut the progressive cause at the knees for many many years to come.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

A 3rd party will never by viable in the US due to the Electoral College. It will always naturally merge into a two party system under our structure at the presidential level.

Isn't Stein also incredibly anti-science? Like just outright refuses a good amount of clear scientific evidence on critical issues? And aren't the end of Civil Rights laws part of the official Libertarian platform?

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

I don't care who she picks. I'm now at a point where I have to vote for her to stop Trump. I do not want him anywhere near the white house.

This is quite reasonable.

 

[gdt]

God damn Alucard set dudes off just right haha

 

[pigeon]

God damn Alucard set dudes off just right haha

I'm glad everyone agrees he's a deliberate troll!

 

[remist]

Okay.

So, to be clear, your firm position is that you are fine with allowing a white nationalist to take over America because of your strong feelings on email servers. If I disagree with that, I am "guilting you."

My firm position is that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If Donald Trump becomes president it will be because the democrats nominated an incompetent candidate, not because I abstained from voting. I think she will almost certainly win anyway, although its closer than it should be due to self inflicted wounds on Hillary's part.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You have that backwards.



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/promises-promises/485981/

And usually when a nominee breaks a campaign promise as president, it's because of Congressional action working against them, not because they're a two-faced liar that tricked you.

This is why things like "Trump will be different as president" or "He's only saying crazy things to win the primary" are so dangerous. Trump is going to try and do as president exactly what he's running on.



Here's the deal. Those people aren't going to win this election and decide the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation. Hillary and Trump will.

Hillary may not be everything you want in a progressive, but without her justices, SCOTUS will cut the progressive cause at the knees for many many years to come.

It should be pointed out, Obama has even achieved some of his promises legislatively that were later crippled by the courts.

He promised universal healthcare, he passed the Affordable Care Act, the Court struck down making the Medicaid expansion mandatory. Putting that on him would be absurd.

"He only achieved 40% of his promises" just sounds like a hilariously "pulled out of my ass" statistic anyway.

 

[pigeon]

My firm position is that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If Donald Trump becomes president it will be because the democrats nominated an incompetent candidate, not because I abstained from voting. I think she will almost certainly win anyway, although its closer than it should be due to self inflicted wounds on Hillary's part.

This seems like a really roundabout way of saying "yeah, white nationalism, whatever."

It's cool, I think I understand you pretty well now.

 

[metalslimer]

My firm position is that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If Donald Trump becomes president it will be because the democrats nominated an incompetent candidate, not because I abstained from voting. I think she will almost certainly win anyway, although its closer than it should be due to self inflicted wounds on Hillary's part.

Well as long as you can assuage you conscious I guess.

 

[Noirulus]

It should be pointed out, Obama has even achieved some of his promises legislatively that were later crippled by the courts.

He promised universal healthcare, he passed the Affordable Care Act, the Court struck down making the Medicaid expansion mandatory. Putting that on him would be absurd.

"He only achieved 40% of his promises" just sounds like a hilariously "pulled out of my ass" statistic anyway.

I think the statistic I saw didn't account for compromises, which checking Politifact now is at 45% so, I wasn't too off. 70% through compromises is pretty good, though.