Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[High Plains Drifter 11195]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Fewer.

You would think someone who quibbles over "defund" means to completely or only partially reduce funding would know the difference.

 

[wildcat09 29622]

2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

You would think someone who quibbles over "defund" means to completely or only partially reduce funding would know the difference.

 

Incredulity is basically the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Incredulity 11893]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Incredulity is basically the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

wrong poster dipshit.

[jimmyjazz 47397]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

wrong poster dipshit.

Freddy-Kruger effect?

[Incredulity 11893]

Kruger Industrial Smoothing

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[EMAWesome 101]

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 PM, Rimbo said:

You misspelled "centrist." AOC isn't even particularly left-wing. It's just that what used to be the right-wing of this country has lost its marbles, the biggest case of mass self-brainwashing since Jonestown.

It seems like every day here I find a dumbest post in the history of the internet.  If you think AOC isn't left wing then you are an idiot.  This is not up for debate.  This is like saying the sky isn't even particularly blue or Bob Stoops doesn't even particularly eat bags of dicks.

[Turkleton 145]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

 

And people on here love her. It really is sad what the CR has become from the shaggy days. 

[babysdaddy 2731]

Yeah, not a good day for her on that one.  She did much better with Cohen

[Anastasis 23727]

Wells Fargo can eat a huge raw dick.  But that is a real WTF exchange.

[GRHorn 105]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Wells Fargo can eat a huge raw dick.  But that is a real WTF exchange.

Agree on both counts. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Not her best day.

Still a long way off from publicly denouncing intelligent airline pilots. 

[Message Board User 12409]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.  She's a joke.

 

[elfenix 34820]

then again, if the bank made a car loan to a known drug dealer, and said drug dealer had his car tied up in civil asset forfeiture, the bank probably wouldn't be able to use the innocent lienholder defense.   so i guess the question is if the bank made a loan in reckless (or worse) disregard for what its borrower was doing, should the bank be held liable? 

Edited March 12, 2019 by elfenix

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Seems to me she’s trying to hold corporate America accountable for their lack of social responsibility.  She’s highlighting these private prisons and the banks that finance them behaving like sociopaths with zero liability for the damage they’re a big part of facilitating.

You can think that’s unfair and she’s going about it the wrong way but it is a point worth making. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 32154]

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

then again, if the bank made a car loan to a known drug dealer, and said drug dealer had his car tied up in civil asset forfeiture, the bank probably wouldn't be able to use the innocent lienholder defense.   so i guess the question is if the bank made a loan in reckless (or worse) disregard for what its borrower was doing, should the bank be held liable? 

In your scenario, the bank isn't "held liable," it just loses the ability to exercise its rights.  Which is more than somewhat akin to the bank's customers tanking because of shoddy business practices and the bank taking a loss on its loans.  The bank pays a price for its lending practices, but isn't independent liable for the torts or crimes of its debtors.

Edited March 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34820]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In your scenario, the bank isn't "held liable," it just loses the ability to exercise its rights.  Which is more than somewhat akin to the bank's customers tanking because of shoddy business practices and the bank taking a loss on its loans.  The bank pays a price for its lending practices, but isn't independent liable for the torts or crimes of its debtors.

well, yeah.  it loses its lien.  that's still a form of liability.

[Anastasis 23727]

I don't think that this line of reasoning ends at a place where AOC wants to go.  For example apply the logic of social responsibility to individuals.

 

Should WF run criminal background checks on all of their mortgage and auto loan applicants?  Should they establish clear criteria that would make certain individuals with a criminal history ineligible for home or auto financing. Example history of DWI results in rejection of an auto loan, or history of a drug distribution offense results in turning down a mortgage as a result of some risk assessment that the individual may use the financed asset in a way that is not socially responsible. I don't think that that is where AOC wants to go with things. Opens up a huge can of worms, imo.  How about we expect banks to operate under the regulatory frameworks that has been established and assess risk associated with the financial transaction and leave the social engineering overlay out of it. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[elfenix 34820]

you think that isn't in your credit report? 

 

Edit: looking into it, it's not. I'm surprised by that given the risks of civil asset forfeiture and how it seems like every piece of information about someone is available at data brokers nowadays.

 

Edit 2: some lenders do background checks depending on the type/size of loan, which can include criminal history

 

[TwiceHorn 32154]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that this line of reasoning ends at a place where AOC wants to go.  For example apply the logic of social responsibility to individuals.

 

Should WF run criminal background checks on all of their mortgage and auto loan applicants?  Should they establish clear criteria that would make certain individuals with a criminal history ineligible for home or auto financing. Example history of DWI results in rejection of an auto loan, or history of a drug distribution offense results in turning down a mortgage as a result of some risk assessment that the individual may use the financed asset in a way that is not socially responsible. I don't think that that is where AOC wants to go with things. Opens up a huge can of worms, imo.  How about we expect banks to operate under the regulatory frameworks that has been established and assess risk associated with the financial transaction and leave the social engineering overlay out of it. 

It's one way to regulate capitalism, sure, but I think it's way the hell down the list of viable and effective ways to do it that won't cripple the economy.

[Rimbo 27201]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

It seems like every day here I find a dumbest post in the history of the internet.  If you think AOC isn't left wing then you are an idiot.  This is not up for debate.  This is like saying the sky isn't even particularly blue or Bob Stoops doesn't even particularly eat bags of dicks.

I didn't go that far. I was referring to the posters here as "centrist," and saying that AOC is not really that far from it. But, if reading comprehension and basic intelligence were yours, you wouldn't be supporting what the GOP is doing right now, either.

[GRHorn 105]

She thinks she nailed it. 

 

[Enchubben 5602]

11 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you think that isn't in your credit report? 

I didnt think criminal records were included in credit reports but maybe I’m mistaken. I think they should be and maybe we move down that path but as long as banks make money what do they care? And that’s fine by me.

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

She thinks she nailed it. 

 

Repost, but still funny. 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

 

Sometimes she has some decent points but most of the time she looks like a fucking dumbass. Like here.

[elfenix 34820]

And here I thought it was the left who couldn't meme

 

Edit: damnit johnny sack got in between

 

 

[Anastasis 23727]

28 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you think that isn't in your credit report? 

 

Edit: looking into it, it's not. I'm surprised by that given the risks of civil asset forfeiture and how it seems like every piece of information about someone is available at data brokers nowadays.

 

Edit 2: some lenders do background checks depending on the type/size of loan, which can include criminal history

 

Yeah, it's not in the credit report. Do you think that criminal history, such as a drug offense, should be a disqualifier for a mortgage?  I don't.  I don't think AOC does. The logic that she is trying to push in this case, when applied to individual applicants, would result in unintended consequences imo. This was just a poorly thought out line of attack, and seems to be a means to deploy rhetoric about the keystone pipeline and babies in cages rather than a real thoughtful offensive against lending practices by WF and others that are problematic.  She should have focused on the infinite other angles of attack on WF. Cause fuck them.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

She's even missed the fact that the public doesn't pay for spills from pipelines. Didn't she get a degree in economics? What do they teach in economics in college these days?

The public doesn't pay for pipeline cleanups.

Those operating companies buy and stack pollution-liability insurance policies on top of each other into an insurance "tower". The pipeline operators pay their self-insured retention (essentially their deductible) and the insurance companies pay everything else, up to the individual limits of the policies.

Deductibles for operators are typically at least $5MM, with stacked insurance limits up to $25MM or $50MM. And the insurance companies also evaluate the operators' histories and spill prevention/response procedures, to see if they are an acceptable risk.

Honestly, this is not rocket science. Pipelines leak and get cleaned up. Dry cleaners leak and get cleaned up. Landfills leak and get cleaned up.
 

[elfenix 34820]

Depends on what the drug offense is. Like I said, at some point you're not going to be able to use innocent lienholder in defense of a CAF action. I'm not sure where that line is because I haven't done that work in 10 years and never lost one (stuff was all low level), but there's a line somewhere.

[Dahobbs 18454]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She's even missed the fact that the public doesn't pay for spills from pipelines. Didn't she get a degree in economics? What do they teach in economics in college these days?

The public doesn't pay for pipeline cleanups.

Those operating companies buy and stack pollution-liability insurance policies on top of each other into an insurance "tower". The pipeline operators pay their self-insured retention (essentially their deductible) and the insurance companies pay everything else, up to the individual limits of the policies.

Deductibles for operators are typically at least $5MM, with stacked insurance limits up to $25MM or $50MM. And the insurance companies also evaluate the operators' histories and spill prevention/response procedures, to see if they are an acceptable risk.

Honestly, this is not rocket science. Pipelines leak and get cleaned up. Dry cleaners leak and get cleaned up. Landfills leak and get cleaned up.
 

This isn't completely right. Yes, assuming the company is found liable AND has sufficient assets or insurance, then the company pays for the cleanup. But, (1) companies don't always have sufficient assets or insurance, (2) companies aren't always found liable or at the very least don't concede liability initially (in fact, they never do). In those instances, the public would indeed pay the for the cleanup, or at least initially pay for it. And, in many instances whatever settlement is arrived at is just that, a settlement of a dispute with neither side completely winning. Thus, the public still ends up paying for some of the cleanup.  In fact, litigation over pipeline spills is incredibly common precisely because companies and their insurers never say "yep, it is all on us." And I am not blaming them for that. I'm just stating how the world actually works and not this magical world where "pipelines leak and get cleaned up" just like that. You'd think a lawyer would know this really basic stuff. It isn't rocket science. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Johnny Sack 8397]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This isn't completely right. Yes, assuming the company is found liable AND has sufficient assets or insurance, then the company pays for the cleanup. But, (1) companies don't always have sufficient assets or insurance, (2) companies aren't always found liable or at the very least don't concede liability initially (in fact, they never do). In those instances, the public would indeed pay the for the cleanup, or at least initially pay for it. And, in many instances whatever settlement is arrived at is just that, a settlement of a dispute with neither side completely winning. Thus, the public still ends up paying for some of the cleanup.  In fact, litigation over pipeline spills is incredibly common precisely because companies and their insurers never say "yep, it is all on us." And I am not blaming them for that. I'm just stating how the world actually works and not this magical world where "pipelines leak and get cleaned up" just like that. You'd think a lawyer would know this really basic stuff. It isn't rocket science. 

Her questioning was retarded. If I’m Wells Fargo or JP Morgan and BP wants to do a bond deal (raise capital) to build more ships...you do your due diligence. Bankers likely check out the existing fleet, ask for designs on the new fleet, ask for reasons for expansion (replacing old ships, travel faster speeds, more demand, etc). They do that work. They make the loan.

BP's ship  has an oil spill. It costs billions. If you make JP Morgan responsible for the clean up it will cost them billions. They will turtle up and never lend to any similar project again. Can’t imagine the coupon on a BP bond before the spill but they probably borrowed pretty cheaply post QE. Maybe 2 or 3 handle. You know what that financing costs them if you make the underwriter responsible? Probably 2,3,4x. Which means BP doesn’t borrow, which means no one builds the ships, which means less steel demand which means less dudes making steel.

And why stop at the underwriter they don’t own the much of the loan? They allocate to big insurance guys and asset managers. Shouldn’t PIMCO, Blackrock, New York life be responsible too? They own the debt now?

The problem is she has no idea what the fuck she is talking about or how capital markets work nor the effect of penalizing those who make loans to finance projects.

[RomaVicta 30678]

Conservo boners all around. It was a long wait after months of unfounded ridicule of the dumb bar tending chick. All the radio guys were counting on an early mistake to make their case about idiot socialist, Jew-hating, cow-outlawing Dems, but AOC just wouldn't make a notable public mistake.

On its face, this looks like it finally happened. Of course, a person has to wait awhile to be sure that it's not another right-wing distortion of the facts.

Fuck you guys for putting someone under the magnifying glass hoping they fail in any detail so you can unload your troglodyte guffaws at the stupid bitch that secretly scares you.

One of the greatest ironies of the irony-deaf history of the conservative hate engine was accusing Clinton of the politics of personal destruction. This was/is claimed by people anxious to believe the Clintons are murderous traitors and sexual deviants. Your whole modus is broad brush ridicule. Childish and shameless but effective with the mob you've created.

Again, to be clear, fuck you.

[David Dennison 19574]

We certainly wouldn't want Johnny's portfolio to suffer.

[Turkleton 145]

27 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Conservo boners all around. It was a long wait after months of unfounded ridicule of the dumb bar tending chick. All the radio guys were counting on an early mistake to make their case about idiot socialist, Jew-hating, cow-outlawing Dems, but AOC just wouldn't make a notable public mistake.

On its face, this looks like it finally happened. Of course, a person has to wait awhile to be sure that it's not another right-wing distortion of the facts.

Fuck you guys for putting someone under the magnifying glass hoping they fail in any detail so you can unload your troglodyte guffaws at the stupid bitch that secretly scares you.

One of the greatest ironies of the irony-deaf history of the conservative hate engine was accusing Clinton of the politics of personal destruction. This was/is claimed by people anxious to believe the Clintons are murderous traitors and sexual deviants. Your whole modus is broad brush ridicule. Childish and shameless but effective with the mob you've created.

Again, to be clear, fuck you.

Serious question, Roma. How old are you? I really don't mean anything political about it, just curious.

[Incredulity 11893]

That is a Shelia Jackson Lee, shit the bed, type performance. Undeniable.

[David Dennison 19574]

2 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

Serious question, Roma. How old are you? I really don't mean anything political about it, just curious.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

31 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Conservo boners all around. It was a long wait after months of unfounded ridicule of the dumb bar tending chick. All the radio guys were counting on an early mistake to make their case about idiot socialist, Jew-hating, cow-outlawing Dems, but AOC just wouldn't make a notable public mistake.

On its face, this looks like it finally happened. Of course, a person has to wait awhile to be sure that it's not another right-wing distortion of the facts.

Fuck you guys for putting someone under the magnifying glass hoping they fail in any detail so you can unload your troglodyte guffaws at the stupid bitch that secretly scares you.

One of the greatest ironies of the irony-deaf history of the conservative hate engine was accusing Clinton of the politics of personal destruction. This was/is claimed by people anxious to believe the Clintons are murderous traitors and sexual deviants. Your whole modus is broad brush ridicule. Childish and shameless but effective with the mob you've created.

Again, to be clear, fuck you.

you seem take this very personally.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

33 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Conservo boners all around. It was a long wait after months of unfounded ridicule of the dumb bar tending chick. All the radio guys were counting on an early mistake to make their case about idiot socialist, Jew-hating, cow-outlawing Dems, but AOC just wouldn't make a notable public mistake.

On its face, this looks like it finally happened. Of course, a person has to wait awhile to be sure that it's not another right-wing distortion of the facts.

Fuck you guys for putting someone under the magnifying glass hoping they fail in any detail so you can unload your troglodyte guffaws at the stupid bitch that secretly scares you.

One of the greatest ironies of the irony-deaf history of the conservative hate engine was accusing Clinton of the politics of personal destruction. This was/is claimed by people anxious to believe the Clintons are murderous traitors and sexual deviants. Your whole modus is broad brush ridicule. Childish and shameless but effective with the mob you've created.

Again, to be clear, fuck you.

[Anastasis 23727]

34 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

On its face, this looks like it finally happened. Of course, a person has to wait awhile to be sure that it's not another right-wing distortion of the facts.

I hate it when CSPAN does that shit. 

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, it's not in the credit report. Do you think that criminal history, such as a drug offense, should be a disqualifier for a mortgage?  I don't.  I don't think AOC does. The logic that she is trying to push in this case, when applied to individual applicants, would result in unintended consequences imo. This was just a poorly thought out line of attack, and seems to be a means to deploy rhetoric about the keystone pipeline and babies in cages rather than a real thoughtful offensive against lending practices by WF and others that are problematic.  She should have focused on the infinite other angles of attack on WF. Cause fuck them.  

💯 

There’s so many slam dunks on Wells Fargo like money laundering, opening unwanted accounts for people and skating, but she had to try to score points related to her pet project and she comes out looking like a clueless amateur. 

[elfenix 34820]

you seem take this very personally.  

You forgot to log into your sock account before making the second reply

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Conservo boners all around. It was a long wait after months of unfounded ridicule of the dumb bar tending chick. All the radio guys were counting on an early mistake to make their case about idiot socialist, Jew-hating, cow-outlawing Dems, but AOC just wouldn't make a notable public mistake.

On its face, this looks like it finally happened. Of course, a person has to wait awhile to be sure that it's not another right-wing distortion of the facts.

Fuck you guys for putting someone under the magnifying glass hoping they fail in any detail so you can unload your troglodyte guffaws at the stupid bitch that secretly scares you.

One of the greatest ironies of the irony-deaf history of the conservative hate engine was accusing Clinton of the politics of personal destruction. This was/is claimed by people anxious to believe the Clintons are murderous traitors and sexual deviants. Your whole modus is broad brush ridicule. Childish and shameless but effective with the mob you've created.

Again, to be clear, fuck you.

The link I posted was from CSpan. (Right wing?)

As for putting her under a microscope, she welcomes it, and it’s carried her pretty far already. I don’t feel bad for her and neither should you. She’s not going anywhere. Look here, 140 pages on her thread. 

The real question is who’s more in your wheelhouse, Kate Beckinsale or AOC?

[EuroHorn 3295]

aoc.  She hates capitalism 

[Dahobbs 18454]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Her questioning was retarded. If I’m Wells Fargo or JP Morgan and BP wants to do a bond deal (raise capital) to build more ships...you do your due diligence. Bankers likely check out the existing fleet, ask for designs on the new fleet, ask for reasons for expansion (replacing old ships, travel faster speeds, more demand, etc). They do that work. They make the loan.

BP's ship  has an oil spill. It costs billions. If you make JP Morgan responsible for the clean up it will cost them billions. They will turtle up and never lend to any similar project again. Can’t imagine the coupon on a BP bond before the spill but they probably borrowed pretty cheaply post QE. Maybe 2 or 3 handle. You know what that financing costs them if you make the underwriter responsible? Probably 2,3,4x. Which means BP doesn’t borrow, which means no one builds the ships, which means less steel demand which means less dudes making steel.

And why stop at the underwriter they don’t own the much of the loan? They allocate to big insurance guys and asset managers. Shouldn’t PIMCO, Blackrock, New York life be responsible too? They own the debt now?

The problem is she has no idea what the fuck she is talking about or how capital markets work nor the effect of penalizing those who make loans to finance projects.

I actually dont disagree with most of this. It was an uninformed line of questioning and she probably should have known better. That doesn't change the fact that your post was incredibly misleading. And you definitely should have known better.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Smax 3800]

Kate and it's not even close

[deadshank 24654]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

We certainly wouldn't want Johnny's portfolio to suffer.

Nor regular old ham & egg-type workers' jobs, pension and retirement plans.  You wouldn't want that.  Would you?  

Dont be such a sniveling twit all the time.  A little of your act goes a long way.  

[Js1 87351]

Super well known by Republicans. Boogy-woman 

3 outta 4 GOP know who she is 

4 out of 10 Democrats/Indies have no clue who this freshman House member from the Bronx is 

[David Dennison 19574]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

💯

There’s so many slam dunks on Wells Fargo like money laundering, opening unwanted accounts for people and skating, but she had to try to score points related to her pet project and she comes out looking like a clueless amateur. 

No, she didn't.

[David Dennison 19574]

10 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Nor regular old ham & egg-type workers' jobs, pension and retirement plans.  You wouldn't want that.  Would you?  

Dont be such a sniveling twit all the time.  A little of your act goes a long way.  

Feel free to ignore me, you old twat.

[RomaVicta 30678]

1 hour ago, Turkleton said:

Serious question, Roma. How old are you? I really don't mean anything political about it, just curious.

I'm a boomer.