Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

 

I’m not telling y’all to let it go. Be mad all you want. If y’all want to call for Biden to drop out, have at it. If he’s the nominee, don’t vote for him. 

I understand why people are mad about his comments. If you think his remarks make him worse than Trump, okay. 

 

I already said I'd vote for biden if he was the nominee, we cool, but this is going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

And he told us he wasn’t a president for black People.

Uh, no he didn’t. Unless you mean exclusively for black people.

 

Uncle Tom Obama... I mean, really. Give me a ****ing break. You’re just saying **** now which if I’m being honest, is a pretty common theme with you.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is pandering for Latino votes and is an awful policy position.

Yeah, some people should be deported. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Uh, no he didn’t. Unless you mean exclusively for black people.

 

Uncle Tom Obama... I mean, really. Give me a ****ing break. You’re just saying **** now which if I’m being honest, is a pretty common theme with you.

I didn’t call Obama that nor was suggesting he was. My post is solely about the Democratic party’s treatment of black issues. It’s been put on the back since the end of the Civil Right’s movement with Raygun. The party has asked black voters to vote against an increasingly racist party instead of doing anything tangible to uplift the black community.

 

Obama’s presidency saw black wealth decline by nearly 2/3rds during his presidency.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I didn’t call Obama that nor was suggesting he was. My post is solely about the Democratic party’s treatment of black issues. It’s been put on the back since the end of the Civil Right’s movement with Raygun. The party has asked black voters to vote against an increasingly racist party instead of doing anything tangible to uplift the black community.

 

Obama’s presidency saw black wealth decline by nearly 2/3rds during his presidency.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

 

Name me a politician in the history of human race capable of passing New Deal era programs in 2008-2016 in the United States without resorting to totalitarianism.  Then I'll start throwing stones at Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

OK, can we please end the urination battle now? 

 

No. .....the Dem primary must continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twa said:

No. .....the Dem primary must continue.

Urination battle... I figured it was to see which teen prostitute would be saying to herself, "my god, look what's on top of me" when the pres visits Russia next year.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Name me a politician in the history of human race capable of passing New Deal era programs in 2008-2016 in the United States without resorting to totalitarianism.  Then I'll start throwing stones at Obama.

See you’re not following things again.

 

My post was critical of the Democratic Party since the end of the Civil Rights Movement. That includes Obama but isn’t solely him. 

 

Saying that, the massive loss of black wealth happened under his watch.

 

Lastly, the Democrats have had no desire to pass New Deal level policies since Reagan. That includes Vice President Biden. FFS, Obama offered to gut Social Security to appease the GOP. Run-of-the mill Republicans have been able to pass policies that have eradicated the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement, with help of many Democrats. This is why we must vote with policy in mind even though #resist is convinced the world will be good once Trump is out.

 

This is why a lot of progressives are excited over Sanders and Warren, and to an extent Yang. And why many don’t want a Biden nomination .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

See you’re not following things again.

 

 

Yeah, my bad.  I meant to address whoever posted this thing

 

Quote

Obama’s presidency saw black wealth decline by nearly 2/3rds during his presidency.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

 

Cause that paper argues that what would have prevented destruction of Black wealth after the financial crisis would've been New Deal era initiative of government buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them on favorable terms.  I'm sure if Obama had endless supply of unicorns and sunshines, he would have handed them out like candy too. 

 

Yeah, sorry for not paying attention.  I was calling the person who posted that link naive and that argument totally without merit.  Sorry if that wasn't you.

Edited by bearrock
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

Yeah, my bad.  I meant to address whoever posted this thing

Yeah, and am I missing something or is the massive loss of black wealth referenced in that article something that affected Americans across the board, irregardless of race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bearrock said:

I'm sure if Obama had endless supply of unicorns and sunshines, he would have handed them out like candy too. 

Yeah, the problem is he did have this endless supply of unicorns and sunshines and candies. He just handed it to the banks and bad actors who created the problems and that lead to more problems.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
Quote

Those incentives were worsened by the lax treatment of servicers by both the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice. Given the adverse incentives, some servicers tricked people into foreclosure, according to several investigations and sworn testimony from Bank of America whistleblowers. By repeatedly “losing” people’s paperwork, falsely telling them relief was imminent, or other such tricks, the servicer could string the homeowner along, squeezing out a last few payments before foreclosing on them. Others simply botched the paperwork through incompetence, with the same effect.


Much of that behavior was illegal, and violated the administration’s stated hamp rules. But not only did the Department of Justice decline to thoroughly investigate servicer abuses, the Treasury Department did not permanently claw back a single one of its payments to abusive servicers that had violated its rules...

 

Why not? Neil Barofsky, the bailout inspector general, later testified that protecting the banks was the actual goal. The administration’s aim was to “foam the runway” for the banks, as Barofsky witnessed Tim Geithner tell Elizabeth Warren. HAMP failed, in other words, because it was not designed to help homeowners.

 

As a result, in many cases HAMP actively enabled foreclosure. Its re-default rate — the fraction of people who got a modification and later defaulted out of the program — was 22 percent as of 2013. Only about $15 billion of the original $75 billion appropriation was spent by mid-2016.

 

The other thing is Obama had control of the house and senate his first two years and didn't create teh programs that was needed. 

2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah, and am I missing something or is the massive loss of black wealth referenced in that article something that affected Americans across the board, irregardless of race?

it affected black households more because black wealth was tied into homeownership more than any other group, and black people were playing catch up due to stuff like slavery, redlining, etc.

 

The Dems didn't do anything to alleviate the matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your paper, it affected Latinos worse.

 

Its a pretty stupid article anyway. Pretty clearly dude started with his conclusion and then did some amazing statistical and literal gymnastics to get there. This is one of my favorite parts...

 

As a result, the percentage of black homeowners who were underwater on their mortgage exploded 20-fold from 2007 to 2013.”

 

2007? They even include a handy graph that shows a monster spike in 2007 which continues into the start of his presidency followed by steady improvements after that.

010AAFA5-02E8-4C65-82E9-38C5A8F08AF4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Yeah, the problem is he did have this endless supply of unicorns and sunshines and candies. He just handed it to the banks and bad actors who created the problems and that lead to more problems.

 

 

The other thing is Obama had control of the house and senate his first two years and didn't create teh programs that was needed. 

 

First, Obama did not have control of both houses for two years (unless you're counting less than filibuster proof 60 as control)

 

https://www.ohio.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

 

Quote

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.

 

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

 

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama’s “stimulus” was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn’t have “total control” of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it’s passage.

 

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

 

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

 

Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

 

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.

 

Some things to unpack here.  TARP (which HAMP was part of) passed during the first window with the help of 3 GOP senators.  If Obama said he would refuse to pass a bailout bill because he wanted a New Deal like program, he would have been (rightly) lambasted by both sides.  If he included government buy back of underwater mortgage in the bailout bill, there was a snowball's chance in hell of the GOP senators and Blue Dog Dems supporting it.  

 

If you want to argue that Obama could have supplemented HAMP with a New Deal type program during the 4 month window, you forget that this was the same Congress that would not even give him a public option in the ACA (which would have been magnitudes less controversial than the federal government outright buying bad debts).  Just simple math shows that Dem's 60 in the Senate included the recently turned Arlen Specter, who never would've voted for such a program.  Especially so, considering that they just recently passed an albatross bailout package a few months ago (a very controversial one at that), even moderate dems would be wailing in private (perhaps in public too) that the president has lost his mind.

 

TL:DR, you're wrong.

Edited by bearrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:
 

 

 

Thats would be a pretty stupid thing for a President to say.  Telling Iran we won’t support a US ally militarily does not make the problem go away or help solve it.  It just weakens the US’s negotiating position and helps Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Thats would be a pretty stupid thing for a President to say.  Telling Iran we won’t support a US ally militarily does not make the problem go away or help solve it.  It just weakens the US’s negotiating position and helps Iran.

 

Questioning and perhaps going the extra way by discarding our alliance with Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine as a policy position. There is no hard and fast rule that we must support the Saudi's at all costs.

 

We are probably 20 years too late already in evaluating our relationship with the Saudi kingdom.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, visionary said:
 

 

 

 

 

Mayor Pete is right.  Beto’s Call for gun confiscation helps the NRA and opponents of gun reform.  We can wish that wasn’t true, but it’s obviously so.  I also doubt his sincerity in claiming that wide ranging support exists for the federal government confiscating weapons at this point.  No one credible believes that, and Beto doesn’t strike me as a stupid person.  So I’m left believing that he’s just bull****ting to try to drum up some support for a faltering campaign.

 

 

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Questioning and perhaps going the extra way by discarding our alliance with Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine as a policy position. There is no hard and fast rule that we must support the Saudi's at all costs.

 

We are probably 20 years too late already in evaluating our relationship with the Saudi kingdom.

 

I disagree because of the timing.  This isn’t happening in a vacuum.  Right now Iran is growing it’s influence in the region and they are a dedicated enemy if the United States.  Policy positions can’t just ignore the reality of what’s actually occurring right now.  Telling Saudi Arabia they’re on their own, publicly, is an irresponsible move diplomatically that harms US interests.

 

i agree with you that the Saudi relationship needs to be re-evaluated.  There are ways to do that significantly more advantageous than attention grabbing tweets.  You’d think we’d all have learned this lesson by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Thats would be a pretty stupid thing for a President to say.  Telling Iran we won’t support a US ally militarily does not make the problem go away or help solve it.  It just weakens the US’s negotiating position and helps Iran.

 

I think maybe this is a misinterpretation, but I could be wrong. I don't think he's saying we wouldn't support SA, obviously we do. I think he's saying that the US is going to go to war in place of SA. Regardless though, I think it's in response to POTUS effectively saying he will let SA dictate what we do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.