U.S. Politics

[Shryke]

I didn't realise expecting you to read a whole post that you reply to counted as a "cheap insult".

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Let's break up this love fest and get back to our more subtle snarking that is well camouflaged with actual substance.

[/mod hat]

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In other news, here's a poll that has Gingrich polling 2 points ahead of Obama. Of course, as the pollster points out, that has been the pattern for GOP frontrunners. Surge, get a small lead over Obama, then fade.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

Anyway, if I was a betting man, I'd bet on Gingrich to win the nomintation at this point. He has the potential to self-destruct, but he's also the best of the lot at deflecting criticism and focusing on issues. There is just a significant segment in the GOP that will rally around anyone but Mitt, and Newt is the clear leader amoung that group.

He'd be an interesting matchup with Obama because he'd undoubtedly run on the "balanced three budgets and reformed welfare" mantra, which may be more persuasive in this cycle than pointing out his marital transgressions. And he's a good debater, so watching him and Obama go head to head should at least be entertaining.

[TerraPrime]

He'd be an interesting matchup with Obama because he'd undoubtedly run on the "balanced three budgets and reformed welfare" mantra, which may be more persuasive in this cycle than pointing out his marital transgressions. And he's a good debater, so watching him and Obama go head to head should at least be entertaining.

Except that he's even more prone to foot-in-mouth disease than Biden, it seems. I mean, really? One solution to our current economic issues is to reinstate child labor? With that we probably wouldn't even need to dig into his personal life for fodder.

[Shryke]

Is this even a grammatically correct sentence? I had no idea what you were trying to say then, same as now. I can't tell if you're criticizing me for having a problem with secrecy or whether you're agreeing with me. So, I ignored it.

It's a crystal clear sentence. I don't see the problem. I said the real issues (which I enumerated at the end of the sentence) were being ignored because you were focusing on the amount of the loans, which is a fairly trivial issue all things considered. (one of those things being that they were paid back)

You and AP were going "OMG, big numbers!!!!!". Which is just silly. The size of the numbers isn't the problem, it's the other things I mentioned in that sentence. Namely: secrecy, lack of conditions on the bailouts and the fact that after being rescued, the banks turned on the government (which is really related to lack of conditions on the loans.

I guess if you just decide to ignore parts of a post, you miss stuff. Weird...

Hahaha, yes, perspective, that thing where you excuse the opaque financial instruments used by our government because, uhhh, someone said that we were screwed, namely Hank Paulson, another tentacle of the vampire squid itself.

Perspective is reserved only for those who are truly serious about the economy. And if you're going to be serious about the economy, it means institutionalizing moral hazard, and then claiming that you're doing something good for the Merkan peeple.

Um, what the hell are you talking about?

The financial instruments in question were used by the private sector. CDS, CDOs, mortgage-backed securites and all that "good" shit. All things the market used to create the illusion of higher returns by disguising risk.

Secondly, yes we were all fucked if the US financial sector collapsed. If, in the end, the total cost here was $13 billion in extra profit for the financial sector because of sweetheart loans from the government, that's a pretty small cost. That's like the price tag on one of the cheaper departments of the federal government.

[Shryke]

Except that he's even more prone to foot-in-mouth disease than Biden, it seems. I mean, really? One solution to our current economic issues is to reinstate child labor? With that we probably wouldn't even need to dig into his personal life for fodder.

Don't forget his back-and-forth gaffs on immigration, a HUGE hotbutton issue for the GOP.

A bunch of recent polls show Gingrich up in some states, Romney in others.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except that he's even more prone to foot-in-mouth disease than Biden, it seems. I mean, really? One solution to our current economic issues is to reinstate child labor? With that we probably wouldn't even need to dig into his personal life for fodder.

I don't think that would be as big an albatross as you do when he puts it into the context of inner city kids trapped in failing schools. In any case, every candidate -- and that includes Obama -- is going to say some things that cause him trouble. The real issue is how good is that candidate at addressing those things when they occur. Biden's problem is that he just says stupid things for which there is no rational explanation at all.

You and I must not live in the same country. We impeached a president for lying about his affair under oath, bro.

Fixed that for ya.

In any case, there are a lot of moderates who didn't like that impeachment. Remember? Those events are now years in the past, Gingrich never said anything under oath, and as best as I can tell, didn't lie about it publicly. Even still, I think the bigger hurdle for a Republican accused of that is getting his own party's nomination. And if things are bad enough that family values Republicans will line up behind him, based on a belief that the big issues facing this country are far more important than his personal life, I don't think it'll be fatal in the general.

It may be, mind you. But I think this cycle is a bit different, and a mea culpa of "I'm running for President, not Husband of the Year" may work.

[Shryke]

Please FLOW. No one who was behind the Clinton empeachment gave a shit that the lies happened under oath. It was always about him getting his dick sucked.

When it comes to personal matters, Gingrich stinks to high heaven. This is the guy who says he cheated on his cancer-ridden wife because he loved America too much.

[Shryke]

hahaha, seriously? You apparently didn't read my post:

In case you missed it, the parts where I talk about secrecy are in bold! Amazing, the stuff you miss when you project onto everything you read.

You missed my allusion to the fact that the Fed made all these loans in complete secrecy and fought to keep them secret. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along, only to have you accuse me of not saying it. Ohhhhhhhhh jesus.

I didn't miss it and alluded to it in my reply to you. The problem is, as I said in my reply to that post, you were mostly just freaking out about the numbers, which are meaningless. The secrecy is (one of) the real issues. The numbers are a distraction and yet for the first bunch of replies that's all you and AP were talking about.

Really, this is pointless. You and AP are just trying to cover your asses for not bothering to read what I wrote, assuming what I meant instead and then freaking out over that. I'm tired out requoting the same post I made a day ago cause neither of you can be bothered to read. I'm done with retreading this.

Yes, yes, we all heard what Hank Paulson said. Say, did you read his biography? he makes it so... clear there. : lol :

Yeah, it was only Hank Paulson. Everyone took his word on it. No one else looked at the situation on their own and decided the same thing based on their own information. Nope, not a single soul.

Like seriously, this is the dumbest thing.

[The Progressive]

Please please let it be Newt!!!! C'mon teabaggers/Repubs, make it happen!

On Paulson and the tentacles of Goldman Sach ............ sometimes ago, I posted this article which brought to light a secret meeting between Paulson and the good old boys from GS in a Moscow hotel on about June 2008:

http://current.com/community/91239404_did-bushs-treasury-secretary-former-chairman-of-goldman-sachs-break-the-law.htm

Then they had exclusive meeting at the Manhattan headquarters of a hedge fund on July 21, 2008:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/the-secret-meeting-between-henry-paulson-and-the-hedge-funds.html

GS reaped insane profits from the financial meltdown.

[DanteGabriel]

I love this Newt Power thing. I mean, if the GOP wants to run a serially dishonest and totally unlikeable whorebag against a likeable President that they've managed to kneecap for the majority of his term, by all means do so.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah - Newt is much better than the rest of the clown show at seeming like a serious politician, but he does remain erratic. I think he's a guy that could potentially win, but I do not think that he's a strong candidate.

Well, I've certainly seen better. But I do think he's fortunate in that this election cycle may be tailored made for him. That "sent three balanced budgets" to the White House as speaker is a damn nice bit of advertisement for folks worried about the deficit. Plus, the Democrats have been spending the last 10 years extolling the virtues of the 90's for a booming economy, and Gingrich can lay better claim to that than anyone else running. Again, in an election year where economic issues will dominate, that stuff matters.

He's not very "likeable" no matter what you like, and he does have the whole sordid personal life stuff too.

That's true. He comes across as the guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Then again, if he can convince people that he really is that smart, that might be what they're looking for right now.

The debates would be fun, because you know Obama would hit him on him supporting mandates back in the early 90's, etc. And with a decision due next June on the ACA, that could be a real hot button issue. In any case, Dems who always lament that the GOP avoids nominating people who "act smart" should enjoy him should he be the nominee.

[SpicyTurkey]

Yeah, it was only Hank Paulson. Everyone took his word on it. No one else looked at the situation on their own and decided the same thing based on their own information. Nope, not a single soul.

Like seriously, this is the dumbest thing.

People have been warning about this for years before it happened. The FED, and its cronies were parading the "soundness" of the economy a year prior to its potential collapse. Those who were warning us have been doing so for almost a decade.

[TerraPrime]

That's true. He comes across as the guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Then again, if he can convince people that he really is that smart, that might be what they're looking for right now.

Truly? I find this.... oh wait, hold on, I got a call.... "Hi, you're Joe the Plumber? Yes, can you hold? Ok, thanks."

Ok, where was I?

The debates would be fun, because you know Obama would hit him on him supporting mandates back in the early 90's, etc. And with a decision due next June on the ACA, that could be a real hot button issue. In any case, Dems who always lament that the GOP avoids nominating people who "act smart" should enjoy him should he be the nominee.

Except, least for this Democrat, Newt doesn't "act smart."

Although, Newt is, at least, articulate and possesses a vocabulary that will score well in a GRE, which is definitely improvement over Bachman and Palin and Huckabee and Caine. So ok, kudos for that.

[Shryke]

Except I wasn't. I posted about how the secrecy was really bad. Very bad. Surely you can read the post I just quoted to you.

And I replied to it. In that post you didn't read. Where I said you were focusing too much on the amount and not enough on the secrecy or the lack of strings.

And re: Hank Paulson, I'm just not convinced, particularly when the banks are making a killing right now. I say let them burn. The nice thing is that shortly, we'll probably have another chance to watch them burn, but I assume you'll do the same song and dance.

Just because they are again making money doesn't mean the situation wasn't desperate at the time. lockesnow has a good post on it:

I hate TARP but it was necessary to restore the commercial paper market. People think the crisis wasn't going to effect them, but millions and millions of salaried employees were not going to get a paycheck at the end of that month without TARP passing--that would have caused a real catastrophe.

The financial markets were teetering badly and the only question if nothing was done was about how bad it would be. But any amount of bad would be worse then what we are experiencing right now.

The problem with TARP wasn't the money or the fact that it existed, it was that the US government saved their asses and then didn't restructure them as a condition of doing so.

[Jaxom 1974]

You and I must not live in the same country. We impeached a president for lying about his affair, bro.

So 15 years ago. This was before the 24 hour news cycle had smart phones and the everyday Joe throwing up images from the street of his buddy getting hit in the noots by a pigeon flying by too low right onto YouTube. It was before the Real Housewives and the Kardashians. It was before ten years of wars in the Middle East. It was before other things like a financial meltdown have people looking in a completely opposite direction.

If Bill Clinton was in office today and had this happen, there would have been a scandal sure, but I doubt it would have gone as far as impeachment. People do not care the way they did even 15 years ago...

Except I wasn't. I posted about how the secrecy was really bad. Very bad. Surely you can read the post I just quoted to you.

Not looking to enflame or get in the middle, but to play a little devil's advocate: While you did mention secrecy, your initial posts on the subject did come across as being more about the sum of money, Coco. It seemed like that was your initial focus, whether you meant it to or not.

[awesome possum]

You and AP were going "OMG, big numbers!!!!!". Which is just silly. The size of the numbers isn't the problem, it's the other things I mentioned in that sentence. Namely: secrecy, lack of conditions on the bailouts and the fact that after being rescued, the banks turned on the government (which is really related to lack of conditions on the loans.

I guess if you just decide to ignore parts of a post, you miss stuff.

Like the parts of mine and Coco's posts where we complained about more than just OMG BIG NUMBERS?!??!!

You're the one who decided to swing his dick around by claiming we were advocating for a complete financial collapse.

It's always been a little endearing when you pointlessly rage at people and/or against things, except this is taking it to a whole new level because you're trying to rail against Coco and I for "ignoring parts of a post" while having ignored the parts of our posts where we directly mention the shit you claim we should really be upset about.

If I seemed focused on the money, it's because it's the most amazing aspect of it. $7.7 trillion dollars. It's the type of buzz word to get the attention of people who don't normally pay attention to this. Talk to them about any aspect of the situation and you start to see a glazed look come across their eyes. Mention that the federal reserve gave $7.7 trillion to the banks and you can get the populist anger that should have been raging three years ago.

Now, kindly, stop putting words in my mouth or just piss off. Your choice.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except, least for this Democrat, Newt doesn't "act smart."

Obviously, you're not one of the people who is undecided as to whether you're going to support Obama or the GOP nominee in 2012. You oppose virtually every GOP position on substance, so you see what they do as dumb.

Although, Newt is, at least, articulate and possesses a vocabulary that will score well in a GRE, which is definitely improvement over Bachman and Palin and Huckabee and Caine. So ok, kudos for that.

Which is exactly the point I was making. Though you obviously won't find his arguments persuasive, he's much better than the alternatives, Bush, or even McCain at debating and articulating logical arguments. And for the swing voters who may go either way, I rather think they'll appreciate that.

[Shryke]

So 15 years ago. This was before the 24 hour news cycle had smart phones and the everyday Joe throwing up images from the street of his buddy getting hit in the noots by a pigeon flying by too low right onto YouTube. It was before the Real Housewives and the Kardashians. It was before ten years of wars in the Middle East. It was before other things like a financial meltdown have people looking in a completely opposite direction.

If Bill Clinton was in office today and had this happen, there would have been a scandal sure, but I doubt it would have gone as far as impeachment. People do not care the way they did even 15 years ago...

Anthony Weiner man. 24 hour news just makes these scandals BIGGER.

[Shryke]

Like the parts of mine and Coco's posts where we complained about more than just OMG BIG NUMBERS?!??!!

You're the one who decided to swing his dick around by claiming we were advocating for a complete financial collapse.

Uh no, I asked you, given the larger price tag, whether you had reassesed the situation and decided the financial collapse was preferable.

If you don't think that (and I actually assumed you didn't, hence the rest of this setence), then the price tag is irrelevant. It needed to be done.

It's always been a little endearing when you pointlessly rage at people and/or against things, except this is taking it to a whole new level because you're trying to rail against Coco and I for "ignoring parts of a post" while having ignored the parts of our posts where we directly mention the shit you claim we should really be upset about.

If I seemed focused on the money, it's because it's the most amazing aspect of it. $7.7 trillion dollars. It's the type of buzz word to get the attention of people who don't normally pay attention to this. Talk to them about any aspect of the situation and you start to see a glazed look come across their eyes. Mention that the federal reserve gave $7.7 trillion to the banks and you can get the populist anger that should have been raging three years ago.

Now, kindly, stop putting words in my mouth or just piss off. Your choice.

No it's not and you saying this is exactly what I was talking about. And what you were denying just a sentence before this.

Like Jaxom 1974, all your posts made me think about was how much you were freaking out about the cost. Mostly cause that's pretty much all you were talking about.

The cost isn't that important.