• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SolicitorPirate

Member
UltimaPooh said:
i mean fair enough... not everyone in Wall Street is out to get us... It's just a basic framing that all politicians do to get people to wrap their minds around what they want to accomplish.

When I brought up that fact that people were defending Wall Street I wasn't implying that they are an all encompassing conspiracy out to get us... but asking why does Wall Street really need offending? They are capable of doing that themselves... We certainly don't need to shill out for them.
Click to expand...

Well, some of us do work in finance (or did, in my case) and would like to remind other posters that we aren't fraudsters who drown kittens in our spare time.
 
C

CCS

Banned
SolicitorPirate said:
Well, some of us do work in finance (or did, in my case) and would like to remind other posters that we aren't fraudsters who drown kittens in our spare time.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think regulators are all brave and noble souls, and everyone else is a bastard, a liar and a cheat ;)
 
S

superdeluxe

Member
RastaMentality said:
Landmark/Rosetta Stone Poll — Georgia:
Hillary 72
Bernie 20

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/poll-shows-clinton-enormous-lead-georgia-primary/nqWJr/
Click to expand...

vladimir-putin_2759865b.jpg


Starting to border on Putin's 90-10 victories.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
UltimaPooh said:
They sued 17 different institutions.

It wasn't 1 or 2 or even 3.

At what point would you consider it systemic?
Click to expand...

I mean, I explained in my post exactly why

pigeon said:
saying it was fundamentally about systematic fraud is, like, I think pretty questionable.
Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with how MANY banks were sued. That does not seem relevant to the discussion to me! If you want to respond to me, why not, like, respond to the things I am saying?
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
I think it seems pretty obvious towards most that Obama has tried as hard as he can to fight on the right sides of issues that work against everyday Americans. I don't think saying "Obama hasn't delivered what people want because he is a wallstreet puppet" would work because nobody actually believes that. Its pretty clear that it has been republicans in congress working against people's interests and not the President.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically if I was going to try and peg Dishonest on Obama, I'd probably go with the National Security / Transparency angle, where he really doesn't have a spectacular record relative to his campaign promises (and you can maybe chain that back to the Military Industrial Complex (and hence Corporations) if you're the kind of person who gets paid for this ie not me). But that's always dicey since people's reactions to NatSec / Law Enforcement is totally fucked up, it's much better for someones career in those areas to run down 47 innocent people and make their lives a living hell than to let 1 guilty person / terrorist get away / through.
 
U

UltimaPooh

Member
pigeon said:
I mean, I explained in my post exactly why



It had nothing to do with how MANY banks were sued. That does not seem relevant to the discussion to me! If you want to respond to me, why not, like, respond to the things I am saying?
Click to expand...

What you describe in your post sounds like you are responding to an argument about a conspiracy to commit something.

They did commit fraud and it was across the board. Yeah sure it was created by a speculative market and other happenstances... but when it did occur it was fraudulent behavior... not just at a few institutions.

This doesn't mean that I think the finance sector is so terrible and awful but it definitely needs to be put in check... and it needs a system that doesn't allow for such harmful bubbles to occur.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
metalslimer said:
Hopefully after Super Tuesday we can start looking forward to the general.
Click to expand...

I look forward to pages of mortified disapproval about how some Bernie supporters aren't supporting Hillary interspersed with pages about how they are all idiots nd/or privileged and the relationship between the two being completely ignored (wait that means nothing will change at all).
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Honestly, I dislike Bernie's focus on Hillary's wall street connections for the very simple reason that I dislike any argument grounded in the idea that your disagreements are down to bad faith. It shows a view of the world centered around the idea that you're right, and anybody who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil (corrupt, in this case). If Bernie thinks her policies are fundamentally flawed, attack her policies. If he has proof of corruption, offer it. Otherwise it's all just half-truths and passive aggressive bullshit. Bullshit, I might add, that really does have the potential to damage Hillary in the general vs. Trump. Like playing with hand grenades.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
metalslimer said:
Hopefully after Super Tuesday we can start looking forward to the general.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of not looking forward towards the general if it is against Trump.

It will be ugly. Ugly as hell. Trump will bring up literally every single possible past scandal, Monica Lewinsky, etc. It will be a sexist nightmare.

Ted Cruz will probably stick to the emails and other things nobody cares about. Which is why I'd prefer he won this.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
It's no surprise to me the Republican Party is dying in California.

Republicans out here can be very different. So-called "former Republicans" or leaners that I've known for a while all care about the environment, climate change, often don't care about LGBT rights and abortion (or mildly support), and support strong defense but believe Iraq was a clusterfuck and are against a new war. The national party is far from them in this regard.

They mostly just want their tax cuts and maybe less regulations on their businesses (outside of energy industry).

Democrats out here are more like Sanders, Independents like Hillary, and Republicans like 2000 McCain (I guess, lacking a better comp on this one).
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
How many delegates would Bernie even get in Georgia? With such a wide lead across almost all demographics, it's likely she'd win the at-large delegates (22) and the district delegates (67).
Click to expand...

Ah, it would be 4 delegates for Bernie and probably 85 delegates for Clinton if this poll is taken at face value.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Ecotic said:
The Channel 2 Georgia numbers (since I get the station):

Trump: 31.7
Rubio 22.7
Cruz 18.7
Carson 8.1
Kasich 7.9
Click to expand...
Cruz is toast. Kasich seems to be pulling in a lot of Bush's support.

PBY said:
?

I thought they were teasing this like it was something big
Click to expand...
Cruz being 4 points behind Rubio is news worthy. If that holds up in other states Cruz is going to behind the delegate threshold where he is supposed to be winning.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Illinois conducted by Paul Simon Institute/SIU

Clinton 51
Sanders 32
Click to expand...

If we're to assume that undecideds break evenly, this would be about 20 delegates to 14 for Bernie, but then breaking down by congressional district would probably yield delegate-rich districts in the Chicago area for Hillary while Bernie gets the southern Illinois delegates that have fewer Democrats.

There are 102 district delegates. Let me look to see the actual breakdown of them by district.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
UltimaPooh said:
They did commit fraud and it was across the board. Yeah sure it was created by a speculative market and other happenstances... but when it did occur it was fraudulent behavior... not just at a few institutions.
Click to expand...

Let's say I show you an asset, tell you it's worth $100, and sell it to you at $100. Then later it turns out you can only get $20 for it.

Have I committed fraud? Maybe! You could certainly make a good argument for it!

Let's say after I sell it to you for $100 I buy like twenty more of the same asset at $100 and put them in my retirement account.

Have I committed fraud?

Fraud requires foreknowledge! Do my actions demonstrate a foreknowledge that the asset was overvalued? If I really thought the asset was valued at $100, then I didn't cheat you. I'm just an idiot.

In a speculative bubble, every individual speculator believes at all times that the value of the asset will continue to increase over the short-term. If they engage in transactions that represent that belief, are they committing fraud?

UltimaPooh said:
This doesn't mean that I think the finance sector is so terrible and awful but it definitely needs to be put in check... and it needs a system that doesn't allow for such harmful bubbles to occur.
Click to expand...

For the record, I think the financial sector is generally terrible and awful. The best thing about it is that smart people are going into computer engineering instead of economics now. (Admittedly they might get hired by Goldman Sachs either way.)

But I don't think "let's outlaw speculative bubbles" is all that actionable. If we knew how to do it it already would be illegal!
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Honestly Cruz collapsing like this is pretty bad, it makes me fear that he might actually drop out sooner than I would have previously thought.
 
C

CCS

Banned
On the plus side: Hillary on fire.

On the down side: Cruz sliding into third, sort of position where he could conceivably be tempted to pull out by a good enough Rubio offer.
 
U

UltimaPooh

Member
pigeon said:
Let's say I show you an asset, tell you it's worth $100, and sell it to you at $100. Then later it turns out you can only get $20 for it.

Have I committed fraud? Maybe! You could certainly make a good argument for it!

Let's say after I sell it to you for $100 I buy like twenty more of the same asset at $100 and put them in my retirement account.

Have I committed fraud?

Fraud requires foreknowledge! Do my actions demonstrate a foreknowledge that the asset was overvalued? If I really thought the asset was valued at $100, then I didn't cheat you. I'm just an idiot.
Click to expand...

That's risk. You are describing risk. What I am describing is fraud. It wasn't just speculation. Here is an article... and an exert. They purposely lied about what they were selling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/banks-sued-subprime-mortgage-deals_n_947349.html

The FHFA alleges that banks repeatedly made false claims to the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the very nature of the loans banks were selling. In many cases, the FHFA claims, banks sold the shoddy loans even after a third-party analysis company informed the banks that billions of dollars’ worth of mortgages did not meet the specifications that the banks made in legal filings and in statements to Fannie and Freddie, which are still owned by U.S. taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Yes... the bubble assisted in the disastrous outcome but it certainly wasn't people just taking on more risk they couldn't handle.

But I don't think "let's outlaw speculative bubbles" is all that actionable. If we knew how to do it it already would be illegal!
Click to expand...

This is the USA... nothing is ever done right quickly.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
The most delegate rich-districts in Illinois are majority black districts and majority minority districts, so she should sweep most of those if she holds those margins. My guess is that Bernie might only be able to scrape up 20-30 of these 102 district delegates.

Tammy Duckworth's district is tied for allocating the least number of delegates at 4.
 
K

kirblar

Member
CCS said:
On the plus side: Hillary on fire.

On the down side: Cruz sliding into third, sort of position where he could conceivably be tempted to pull out by a good enough Rubio offer.
Click to expand...
Latest Hillary/Trump poll in VA- Clinton +17 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html
This is the USA... nothing is ever done right quickly.
Click to expand...
It's not possible to outlaw them. You're supposed to use the fed to pump the brakes, which Greenspan refused to do.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
CCS said:
On the plus side: Hillary on fire.

On the down side: Cruz sliding into third, sort of position where he could conceivably be tempted to pull out by a good enough Rubio offer.
Click to expand...
Cruz pulling out isn't really good for Rubio.

Ideally, Rubio wants Cruz to stay in, in a third place position pulling away votes from The Donald.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Basileus777 said:
Cruz is toast. Kasich seems to be pulling in a lot of Bush's support.


Cruz being 4 points behind Rubio is news worthy. If that holds up in other states Cruz is going to behind the delegate threshold where he is supposed to be winning.
Click to expand...

Last poll had Jeb! at 3% so I guess so?

Maybe Kasich got a bit of a NH bump as well and some of the Jeb! guys went elsewhere, I dunno. Too low to really matter.


It's also one poll. Cruz might be higher, might be lower. Who knows.

Let's hope Cruz gets 2nd in NV. Maybe mormons won't show up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
9K
Mr Hyde replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
53K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom