Discussion in 'Off Topic 2' started by Bruddah IZ, Jul 12, 2016.
If She Can’t Figure Out How to Properly Use E-mail, How Can She Know Enough to Perform the Multitude of Marvels that She Promises to Perform?
if Hillary Clinton’s ‘mistakes’ and carelessness justify her escape from criminal prosecution for the manner in which she arranged to receive and send e-mails during her time as Secretary of State, surely this same incompetence, inattention to detail, and gross carelessness render her utterly unworthy to be trusted with the enormous powers that now are entrusted to the President of the United States.
You can Google why she is qualified if you care to. At this point, she is an anti-Trump vote to me. Feel free to discuss the merits of other candidates, I have an open mind, within reason...
Are you addressing Don Boudreaux?
To be eligible for U.S. President:
1) Must be a natural-born citizen of the U.S.
2) Must have been a permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years
3) Must not have been impeached by the Senate
4) Must not have participated in a rebellion against the United States, and
5) Must be at least 35 years of age.
Gary Johnson is my pick.
So you also think no crimes were committed during the financial crisis?
Yes and no. Did you notice who GJ was talking about as opposed to the scrolled bullet points in the video. Not the same folks.
No? You do understand there have been almost 100 Billion in fines for intentional fraudulent activity by the banks?
The scrolled list in the video you posted on the old site says nothing about the fraudulent activities of the banks. But I am aware of that bank fraud and the U.S. Treasury that bailed them out with QE money.
Not sure what you are getting on about, GJ said clearly, "There were no criminal prosecutions of Wall Street because none of them committed any crimes". Are you trying to distance him from that statement? It's really kinda a big deal...
Do you have a link to the entire conversation?
How about you post the video again. I am not trying to distance him from that statement. Are you trying to distance yourself from what he said and what the video seems to be accusing him of?
Seems like you are.
Seems to be accusing him of? What does that mean?
He made a false statement that goes to the root of moral dilemma and bailouts, and you keep shuffling away from it. Cmon "free market guy", you see what he said, he thinks no crimes were committed by Wall Street and clearly there were.
Does that nullify any other opinion he has that may be more palatable then HRC or Trump, no, but it's certainly a factor to consider.
At 20 seconds in to the video he clearly states that we bailed out Wall St. instead of letting them fail. Who did they indict on Wall St.? So they paid a fine? What does it matter when the fed was paying those same banks a quarter percent on billions maybe trillions in excess reserves! Take some time to read the Special Inspector Generalʻs (Neil Barofsky) book on the bailouts and then tell me who was indicted on Wall St.?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I suspect we agree more then disagree on the topic of Wall Street and the bailouts. Neither of us liked it at all.
My sole concern, from the video, was GJ was under the false impression, that no actual crimes were committed during the Financial Crisis. This is a patently false claim that stemmed partially from Eric Holders ineffectual reign as AG and propaganda from blatant Wall Street defenders.
"One" of the problems through the Crisis and the aftermath, was we resorted to Corporate fines (again Holder trying to be tough), instead of criminal prosecutions. Writing a Corporate check will never serve to punish offenders like jail time does.
Do you have something besides that obviously doctored video? Or is that all you need?
My take on the big deflation is that a lot of what Wall St insiders did to cause and/or take advantage of the crash was not illegal, but would ahve been a few years back, before Congress sold out on financial regulation.
All I need to do what? I've already stated:
"Does that nullify any other opinion he (gj) has that may be more palatable then HRC or Trump, no, but it's certainly a factor to consider."
I'm not throwing GJ out entirely, I just feel that his statement about crimes not being committed during the crisis is very naive and very false. If he is brain dead on that topic, what else is he brain dead on....
I find your quoting out of context like that to be about as convincing as Izzy's "what does it matter" irrelevancy.
What is "out of context"? Does he think the lack of Wall Street prosecutions is due to no crimes being committed, or not?