|
You can also point out that Ellison initially endorsed Sanders...which is something that a financial shill would never do.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You can also point out that Ellison initially endorsed Sanders...which is something that a financial shill would never do. Nope no factional purity tests here. I can't even get over this. This is literally "Ellison was on Our Team so he is better".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Wait are we super critical and will dump anyone for leaning to the center or do we blindly support anyone who supported Bernie?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:There's nothing editorializing about pointing out that Perez was running the department, could have done something, and nothing was done. quote:The SCRA is rarely used for jail time, and other parts of the government were more well-suited for pursuing criminal charges against bank executives... Perez, as assistant attorney general over civil rights, could have used a statute that rarely results in jail time to blow up the settlement his superior at Justice was negotiating to ensure the victims received restitution. But instead he allowed the settlement and restitution to proceed, robbing the American people of the slim possibility of jailing a banker for less than a year! quote:In 2015, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters asked Perez to hold off such a waiver for large banks that had pled guilty to conspiring to rig the foreign-exchange markets. But UBS, Barclays, J.P. Morgan, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and Citigroup received waivers, letting them go right back to managing pension money. Perez, as secretary of labor, did not force unions to find new banks to manage their pension funds, and instead allowed them to continue using banks that did some bad poo poo totally unrelated to their management of pensions! The article is faulting Perez for not loving over bank customers and victims to make some nebulous symbolic stand against the evil banking executives. snyprmag posted:Wait are we super critical and will dump anyone for leaning to the center or do we blindly support anyone who supported Bernie? These do seem to be the heuristics, but obviously fealty to Bernie is more important than purity. By accepting Bernie the taint of centrism can be forgiven, as it was for Tulsi, as it may be for us all. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Nope no factional purity tests here. "I think Keith Ellison will be better on finance and labor because he early and openly supported a candidate that was speaking against the outsize and negative influence that banks and Wall Street have had on America, risking his reputation among establishment party members in doing so." "Factional purity test!!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Perez, as assistant attorney general over civil rights, could have used a statute that rarely results in jail time to blow up the settlement his superior at Justice was negotiating to ensure the victims received restitution. But instead he allowed the settlement and restitution to proceed, robbing the American people of the slim possibility of jailing a banker for less than a year! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You can also point out that Ellison initially endorsed Sanders...which is something that a financial shill would never do. That's reductive and stupid. But I am glad we're being honest now that we're using primary support as a litmus test, it makes it much easier when you're just being honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:Wait are we super critical and will dump anyone for leaning to the center or do we blindly support anyone who supported Bernie?  For future reference that kind of zinger only works if the two horns are mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Nope no factional purity tests here. Sure, or here's what I actually meant: if you believe that the Financial industry's capture of the Democratic party is a huge problem (as do I) you don't put one of their bootlickers in a leadership position. Yes, DNC does not deal directly with the banks or banking policy but it has the ears and eyes of donors and leaders. Putting in Tom "seems like a nice guy but unfortunately has been manacled by finance" Perez in the slot is Not Great if, again, you believe that the party kowtowing to these banks is the problem. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But I am glad we're being honest now that we're using primary support as a litmus test, it makes it much easier when you're just being honest. Well no, I'm pointing out that not a single banker-captured pol endorsed Bernie. How could they? He wants to meaningfully reign them in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sure, or here's what I actually meant: if you believe that the Financial industry's capture of the Democratic party is a huge problem (as do I) you don't put one of their bootlickers in a leadership position. I think calling Perez a bootlicker is indicative of why people don't take you seriously. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Well no, I'm pointing out that not a single banker-captured pol endorsed Bernie. How could they? He wants to meaningfully reign them in. That's not even remotely true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sure, or here's what I actually meant: if you believe that the Financial industry's capture of the Democratic party is a huge problem (as do I) you don't put one of their bootlickers in a leadership position. The point is that saying Perez is a bootlicker for the monstrous crime of letting a beneficial settlement happen and not putting bankers in jail makes you look like a goddamn hack you monumental ignoramus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's not even remotely true. Great, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Name one. Ogmius815 posted:The point is that saying Perez is a bootlicker for the monstrous crime of letting a beneficial settlement happen and not putting bankers in jail makes you look like a goddamn hack you monumental ignoramus. Not putting the bankers in jail gave us Donald Trump. It became part of the status quo that people hate. People hate TARP. People hate Hillary's continuation of that status quo. That's not beneficial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The point is that saying Perez is a bootlicker for the monstrous crime of letting a beneficial settlement happen and not putting bankers in jail makes you look like a goddamn hack you monumental ignoramus. uh, they committed a lot of crimes that deserve to be punished. that the dems don't seem to universally agree on this is a big problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:I'm pretty sure the ideological purity out weighs whatever notion of Team Bernie Solidarity you think there is. If Ellison wins but flounders to the center on important issues, the left will absolutely turn on him. The left turns its critical thinking off when it comes to Dear Leader Bernie. For example, Sanders supporters didn't care that his editorial about the fed from December 2015 was gobbledygook, and they vehemently opposed TPP despite most of them having no idea what it actually was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Great, I'm happy to be proven wrong. You're missing why it's wrong. It's a basic logic fallacy. "Well he supported Bernie so obviously, and since Perez didn't he doesn't." And since your definition of "bank-captured pol" is predicated on a moving target of whatever goal post you've moved to to prove it, nearest I can tell, it's reductive anyway. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Not putting the bankers in jail gave us Donald Trump. It became part of the status quo that people hate. People hate TARP. People hate Hillary's continuation of that status quo. That's not beneficial. People hate taxes too. Guess we better get rid of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
i mean we have a group of companies that conspired to gamble with the health of the economy and our nation to the point we had to bail them out and they still can't keep their noses clean and stop committing hosed up financial crimes, and you guys think fines that don't even cover the money they made breaking the law is just punishment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i mean we have a group of companies that conspired to gamble with the health of the economy and our nation to the point we had to bail them out and they still can't keep their noses clean and stop committing hosed up financial crimes, and you guys think fines that don't even cover the money they made breaking the law is just punishment? That's not what anyone is saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i mean we have a group of companies that conspired to gamble with the health of the economy and our nation to the point we had to bail them out and they still can't keep their noses clean and stop committing hosed up financial crimes, and you guys think fines that don't even cover the money they made breaking the law is just punishment? It might not have been just, but it was what the law called for. You can't make up laws to apply to something people have already done. That's not how law works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Perez, as assistant attorney general over civil rights, could have used a statute that rarely results in jail time to blow up the settlement his superior at Justice was negotiating to ensure the victims received restitution. But instead he allowed the settlement and restitution to proceed, robbing the American people of the slim possibility of jailing a banker for less than a year! Sentence: death by guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It might not have been just, but it was what the law called for. You can't make up laws to apply to something people have already done. That's not how law works. actually, the law in question allows for jail time, and considering how flagrantly the banks have been breaking the law it was warranted. keith ellison agreed with that assessment btw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:People hate taxes too. Guess we better get rid of them. Right, that's what I meant. Just don't do TARP because people didn't like it. I didn't mean an alternative to TARP that helps both distressed homeowner and banks instead of just the banks. You got some balls talking about "reductive logical fallacies" and "people taking your seriously", bud. I'll give you that. now comes the part where you pretend that Obama did help distressed homeowners...LOL
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
The problem with TARP is the lack of political legitimacy, it should have being solved by dragging out 500 random goldman sachs executives and had them thrown off cliffs the people were out for blood and it's not like the world would have missed them, it would have averted the trump presidency if it happened
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Right, that's what I meant. Just don't do TARP because people didn't like it. I didn't mean an alternative to TARP that helps both distressed homeowner and banks instead of just the banks. I like your gendered attack. It really builds on your liberal cred! 10/10 would use again. Wait, who do you think signed TARP into law?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
is "balls" the gendered attack or is "bud" the gendered attack
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Great, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Don Riegle Edit: disingenuous comedy option, Governor Kitzhaber 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Wait, who do you think signed TARP into law? The same guy who presided over the total collapse of the Democratic party at the federal level. Calibanibal posted:is "balls" the gendered attack or is "bud" the gendered attack I'll give 'em both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The same guy who presided over the total collapse of the Democratic party at the federal level. So you're a complete moron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program quote:The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Right, that's what I meant. Just don't do TARP because people didn't like it. I didn't mean an alternative to TARP that helps both distressed homeowner and banks instead of just the banks. Did you spend all of 2008-2016 in some kind of drunken stupor? TARP wasn't the way it was because Obama was a
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The left turns its critical thinking off when it comes to Dear Leader Bernie. For example, Sanders supporters didn't care that his editorial about the fed from December 2015 was gobbledygook, and they vehemently opposed TPP despite most of them having no idea what it actually was. These are weird examples cause most people, left or not, don't have high level knowledge of federal reserve policy or foreign trade agreements. I remember some economists calling out Bernie's specifics on breaking up the banks, and I'll admit it probably needed work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Ok, well, I did gently caress that up and will own it. I remembered it being a two stage bill with Bush getting the first smaller part and Obama getting TARP but I just refreshed my memory and nope. Totally different stuff. BTW I spent most of 2008 watching my housing value collapse and the guys who did it waltz away scott free and then end up advising the President so...my bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:These are weird examples cause most people, left or not, don't have high level knowledge of federal reserve policy or foreign trade agreements. I remember some economists calling out Bernie's specifics on breaking up the banks, and I'll admit it probably needed work. The problem is that people claim to have knowledge of this poo poo when they clearly don't; and when someone who does tries to explain, why for example Perez shouldn't have been expected to do what they thought, they throw a hissy fit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:The problem with TARP is the lack of political legitimacy, it should have being solved by dragging out 500 random goldman sachs executives and had them thrown off cliffs TARP wasn't about anything but making sure the banks didn't collapse like dominoes and unfreezing credit markets to get the economy out of free fall. I dare say marching all the banking executives off to the gas chambers would have made both goals more difficult to achieve. If that's really what the people wanted, I'm glad the people in charge didn't listen. Indulging the electorate's dumbest ideas can have lovely consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Indulging the electorate's dumbest ideas can have lovely consequences. We have a winner! Like it's conceptually a bad idea and explicitly what representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is designed to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The problem is that people claim to have knowledge of this poo poo, when they clearly don't and when someone who does tries to explain, why for example Perez shouldn't have been expected to do what they thought, they throw a hissy fit. And all of this is done in the service of making a leadership election between two candidates with very, very similar ideas (and who, by the way, both seem to be prepared to work with the other) into a rancorous and damaging factional grudge match simply because one candidate is perceived as coming from Team Bernie and the other Team Obama/Clinton (which is the same team now somehow). It's loving nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
"Consequences for the people who destroyed the economy and countless livelihoods is conceptually a bad idea."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:And all of this is done in the service of making a leadership election between two candidates with very, very similar ideas (and who, by the way, both seem to be prepared to work with the other) into a rancorous and damaging factional grudge match simply because one candidate is perceived as coming from Team Bernie and the other Team Obama/Clinton (which is the same team now somehow). It's loving nuts. This has been my biggest frustration with the entire process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
yeah wow i cant believe that the clinton's are supporting the candidate who has no problem sucking wall street's dong, what a shocker does perez have no shame
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:BTW I spent most of 2008 watching my housing value collapse and the guys who did it waltz away scott free and then end up advising the President so...my bad. Your housing value has returned, in large part because policies like TARP avoided a total economic meltdown. I'm also going out on a limb to suggest your mindset that your housing investment could only go up in price was a big part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:"Consequences for the people who destroyed the economy and countless livelihoods is conceptually a bad idea." Totally what I said. Calibanibal posted:yeah wow i cant believe that the clinton's are supporting the candidate who has no problem sucking wall street's dong, what a shocker too my knowledge neither Hillary or Bill have supported a candidate
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:27
|
|