|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 26 2016 00:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
Deregulation created a "new" class of derivatives, credit default swaps, which were basically a type of insurance where if a financial instrument failed to pay out another complany would pay in its stead. It also allowed for crappy stuff like mortgage backed securities.
So, lets say JPM made a bunch of MBS's. Credit agencies give the MBS's a AAA. Lehman Brothers insures these supposedly relatively safe, high yield loans. MBS's collapse en masse. JPM goes to Lehman saying we want our money. Lehman Brothers has to pay out. Their liquidity pool quickly runs out. They have insufficient stop loss insurance. JPM is hemorrhaging cash as well. No one has enough working cap, credit starts to freeze. Government steps in by providing credit lines to prevent this.
This is essentially shadow banking because its taking place through non FDIC insured/ non regulated channels. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act excluded all these derivatives from being regulated.
Ah yes, now it's coming back to me. I'd researched this a little before, so this is a pretty good answer.
The question now is what the rationale was behind such a deregulation in the first place.
I read your post Neb, good one, thanks for it.
|
On April 26 2016 00:23 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 00:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
Deregulation created a "new" class of derivatives, credit default swaps, which were basically a type of insurance where if a financial instrument failed to pay out another complany would pay in its stead. It also allowed for crappy stuff like mortgage backed securities.
So, lets say JPM made a bunch of MBS's. Credit agencies give the MBS's a AAA. Lehman Brothers insures these supposedly relatively safe, high yield loans. MBS's collapse en masse. JPM goes to Lehman saying we want our money. Lehman Brothers has to pay out. Their liquidity pool quickly runs out. They have insufficient stop loss insurance. JPM is hemorrhaging cash as well. No one has enough working cap, credit starts to freeze. Government steps in by providing credit lines to prevent this.
This is essentially shadow banking because its taking place through non FDIC insured/ non regulated channels. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act excluded all these derivatives from being regulated. Ah yes, now it's coming back to me. I'd researched this a little before, so this is a pretty good answer. The question now is what the rationale was behind such a deregulation in the first place. I read your post Neb, good one, thanks for it.
Are you asking why the US government did it or why Bernie supported it?
The reason Bernie supported it, from my perspective, was politicking. Bernie created his identity as an old time classic liberal and hence NEEDED to be against the deregulation of Glass Seagal. However, the market *did* look unstoppable so by throwing in a vote to "help it along" he could hedge his bets between yelling about Glass Seagal while not being obstructionist to progress. If the deregulation worked, he points to his derivatives vote, if the market crashed he points to his glass seagal complaint.
As for the US? The issue was much more incompetence than it was maliciousness.
|
Greed too I would say, a lot of short sighted thinking
|
And lobbying, let's not pretend the politicians have the right distance with financial institutions in this day and age. The end of the glass seagal was very lucrative for big banks.
|
On April 25 2016 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:20 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system She does. That's an indisputable fact. I'm not interested in arguing this with you, the point I'm making is that this is not my position with regards to what Nebuchad was originally claiming. It is what you're ignoring that's part of why your argument doesn't seem sincere. You and she argue that she can't "unilaterally disarm" but ignore she's going above and beyond what anyone else has done.
My reply was in reference to Nebuchad claiming that I said Hillary was a special snowflake within the system, which I never claimed. She's operating within the system as it currently exists, while also trying to change it. Also, like I said, whether or not Trump is the nominee, conservative Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s will be trying to influence the results of the elections. It would be counter-productive for the Democrats to unilaterally limit themselves while the Republicans do not if the aim is to get elected and improve the system. You're also, as usual, completely blowing out of proportion Hillary's use of the legal framework. Let's see how long her next FEC letter is compared to Bernie's, shall we?
|
I think I finally understand the Kasich/Cruz duo. I think the sell they're gonna try to make is: Combined, Cruz+Kasich beat Trump. So if they commit to president Cruz and VP Kasich, it can be seen as mildly democratic? I don't think there's any other way you override the popular vote.
|
On April 26 2016 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I think I finally understand the Kasich/Cruz duo. I think the sell they're gonna try to make is: Combined, Cruz+Kasich beat Trump. So if they commit to president Cruz and VP Kasich, it can be seen as mildly democratic? I don't think there's any other way you override the popular vote.
Cruz is as hated as Trump, he just gets less attention because he isn't the one winning.
I don't see it happening.
|
On April 25 2016 15:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:16 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 15:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 15:01 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time. I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where the term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time." When people say the system is corrupt, they are refering to the influence of money in politics in general. I'm sure it can be argued that it's a shortcut to say corruption to refer to all of these influences, but it's an easy shortcut to make and it's an especially easy one to understand. Again, if your position is that money plays a big role in politics, or too big a role in politics, I don't think your position is that different in spirit from "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics". I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem. I have explicitly described my position and my use of the word. I reject the characterization "the system is corrupt" or that everyone in the system is "corrupt". This is not the same as arguing that I do not think there is an issue with "money in politics". I also do not claim that Hillary is any different from plenty of other candidates, including Obama, in her behavior within that system. Your strawman was simply not an accurate representation of my position. But I specifically was talking about "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics" there, not to "the system is corrupt", which I believe is a shortcut to say the former. I also agree with you that Hillary is very similar to Obama, and a lot of people on Sanders' side would agree with that. Again, I have been decrying the influence of money in politics not only with regards to specific instances of views of officials being influenced by donations from special interests, but with respect to the impact organizations like SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s can have on voters. I have never argued that you could not find examples of officials following the views of their donators, but I have rejected the idea that this is a permanent and systematic norm for politicians, or an inherent characteristic of the system. In any case, since you agree with me that Hillary is similar to Obama and plenty of others (who are not corrupt) in how she operates within the system (as long as it exists this way -- she's still trying to change it), you agree that the position you initially attributed to me is wrong, since it purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system. And I've been saying that the position you describe is similar in spirit to "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics", as long as you do believe that money in politics is a big problem. I've been saying that I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem.
If your point is simply that I have a problem with the current state of the role of money in politics, yes, that's obviously the case as I have repeatedly written. That's different from arguing that the "system is corrupt", or that "every politician is corrupt", and my problem with the role of money in politics is not limited to the influence special interests can have on specific politicians, but extends to the role organizations like Super PAC and 501(c)(4)s can play during elections.
On April 25 2016 15:25 Nebuchad wrote:
You are correct on the second point. Saying only Clinton had these traits was too much of a shortcut on my side. I should have said "the politicians I support" or something in that vein, as Obama must also be included.
Again, false. I am not singling out specific politicians to defend them against an overwhelming majority of politicians who would be corrupt. I never made the claim that most politicians were corrupt. Your imprecise use of the term is leading you to completely misread what I'm saying.
|
On April 26 2016 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I think I finally understand the Kasich/Cruz duo. I think the sell they're gonna try to make is: Combined, Cruz+Kasich beat Trump. So if they commit to president Cruz and VP Kasich, it can be seen as mildly democratic? I don't think there's any other way you override the popular vote. Cruz is as hated as Trump, he just gets less attention because he isn't the one winning. I don't see it happening.
So then, what? Am I the only one who is thinking overriding the popular vote is 100% impossible?
|
On April 26 2016 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 26 2016 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I think I finally understand the Kasich/Cruz duo. I think the sell they're gonna try to make is: Combined, Cruz+Kasich beat Trump. So if they commit to president Cruz and VP Kasich, it can be seen as mildly democratic? I don't think there's any other way you override the popular vote. Cruz is as hated as Trump, he just gets less attention because he isn't the one winning. I don't see it happening. So then, what? Am I the only one who is thinking overriding the popular vote is 100% impossible?
There is no good way out for the Republican party.
The best they can probably do at this point is give the nomination to Trump, lose the election and try to re-align the party for the future. The other ways just burn half of it in rebellion.
|
If Ted Cruz and John Kasich want to team up to try to deny Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump the requisite 1,237 delegates to clinch the GOP nomination outright, that’s up to them, Republican National Committee communications director Sean Spicer said Monday.
“We've said this for a long time: Every campaign has to run its own strategy,” Spicer told MSNBC. “It's really not our job at the RNC to handicap it as much as just to ensure that we have a fair and transparent process.”
Trump is the only candidate with a mathematical path to clinching the nomination before the convention. But in a last-ditch effort to stop the billionaire from reaching the magic number, Cruz and Kasich’s campaigns announced late Sunday that they would cede states to each other.
“If Donald Trump gets to 1,237 bound delegates, he becomes the presumptive nominee,” Spicer said. “If he falls short of that bound delegate number, then we will head to a contested convention, and it looks like that's what the strategy is of the remaining other two candidates. But again, that's up to them to decide, you know, what alliances are good or what strategy they want to employ heading up to Cleveland.”
Trump blasted the “desperate” Cruz-Kasich strategy with a blistering statement released early Monday. “It is sad that two grown politicians have to collude against one person who has only been a politician for ten months in order to try and stop that person from getting the Republican nomination,” Trump said.
“They are mathematically dead and this act only shows, as puppets of donors and special interests, how truly weak they and their campaigns are,” he added.
Source
|
For those of you who read more election articles than I do: has anyone asked Clinton and Sanders about their thoughts on the Republican possibility for a contested convention? I can't seem to find anything on them.
|
It's just so frustrating not understanding what Cruz/Kasich think. There's no way their only intention is bitterness. They must think one of them ends up the nominee as a result of this. They have a favorable angle in this.
|
On April 26 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:
It's just so frustrating not understanding what Cruz/Kasich think. There's no way their only intention is bitterness. They must think one of them ends up the nominee as a result of this. They have a favorable angle in this.
They want to win. Trump winning means neither of them can win. Therefore, they must ensure Trump does not win. If Trump does not win, their goal is to curry favor at the convention so they can win. This requires a contested convention, so they must collude to ensure Trump does not win.
Suicidal for the party? Probably but it's not like any of them really care about that.
|
On April 26 2016 01:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:
It's just so frustrating not understanding what Cruz/Kasich think. There's no way their only intention is bitterness. They must think one of them ends up the nominee as a result of this. They have a favorable angle in this. They want to win. Trump winning means neither of them can win. Therefore, they must ensure Trump does not win. If Trump does not win, their goal is to curry favor at the convention so they can win. This requires a contested convention, so they must collude to ensure Trump does not win. Suicidal for the party? Probably but it's not like any of them really care about that.
So their argument is: Trump is too divisive, though he managed to get way more votes than me. I should be the nominee because he's mean. I don't see any argument they can make. They are going to end up with such a small % of the vote that I feel like that glaring number will derail any of their plans. What argument can they possibly present that makes overriding the popular vote a net positive?
|
On April 26 2016 01:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On April 26 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:
It's just so frustrating not understanding what Cruz/Kasich think. There's no way their only intention is bitterness. They must think one of them ends up the nominee as a result of this. They have a favorable angle in this. They want to win. Trump winning means neither of them can win. Therefore, they must ensure Trump does not win. If Trump does not win, their goal is to curry favor at the convention so they can win. This requires a contested convention, so they must collude to ensure Trump does not win. Suicidal for the party? Probably but it's not like any of them really care about that. So their argument is: Trump is too divisive, though he managed to get way more votes than me. I should be the nominee because he's mean. I don't see any argument they can make. They are going to end up with such a small % of the vote that I feel like that glaring number will derail any of their plans. What argument can they possibly present that makes overriding the popular vote a net positive?
"Pick me, because I'm not Trump" 
|
On April 26 2016 01:23 LegalLord wrote:
For those of you who read more election articles than I do: has anyone asked Clinton and Sanders about their thoughts on the Republican possibility for a contested convention? I can't seem to find anything on them.
I highly doubt they will have made comments about it tbh, even if asked. How the Republican party selects its candidate is up to them and not the business of the Democrats.
|
On April 26 2016 01:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 01:49 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On April 26 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:
It's just so frustrating not understanding what Cruz/Kasich think. There's no way their only intention is bitterness. They must think one of them ends up the nominee as a result of this. They have a favorable angle in this. They want to win. Trump winning means neither of them can win. Therefore, they must ensure Trump does not win. If Trump does not win, their goal is to curry favor at the convention so they can win. This requires a contested convention, so they must collude to ensure Trump does not win. Suicidal for the party? Probably but it's not like any of them really care about that. So their argument is: Trump is too divisive, though he managed to get way more votes than me. I should be the nominee because he's mean. I don't see any argument they can make. They are going to end up with such a small % of the vote that I feel like that glaring number will derail any of their plans. What argument can they possibly present that makes overriding the popular vote a net positive? "Pick me, because I'm not Trump"
Pretty much, its an attempt to get to a contested convention in the first place.
Sadly for them tho "Pick me, I;m not Trump" is followed by "I am Cruz" which is just as bad, if not worse.
|
They're laboring under the idea that the party shouldn't elect on the first ballot someone that may be an unacceptable candidate to >50% of the party. Crazy right?
(this is the entire point of requiring someone to have the majority of the delegates)
This is especially salient for Cruz, who would almost certainly even or ahead or at least be much closer to Trump in delegates and votes if it had been a 1v1 race from day 0.
|
I am quite speechless to be honest. They are doing exactly everything wrong with this obvious power grab move. I predicted it would be bad, but this exceeds my expectations. Bravo current Republican party, your grave has been dug. All you have to do now is lie in it. On average, voters are quite uninformed, but anyone and I mean literally anyone could see what is wrong with this.
Look I've read stories and history about incompetent leaders and commanders of armies, but this must be the first time I'm seeing a close up of one in action. So blinded by perceived power, they don't see the whole battlefield, only their own skirmish.
I am actually saddened by it. Even if I am opposed to nearly all of their policies, this is not healthy for a nation. Seems like the tides of actual change are coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
