Democrats are just as bad as Republicans

[ivwshane]

lol Fool. Yes, absentee ballots can be and are thrown out. MILITARY absentee ballots cannot be thrown out for some of the same reasons though, simply because deployed military members do not pay postage and many duty posts do not offer postal offices at all. Thus the lawsuit and agreement, because many military ballots cannot be post-marked. But please foam on.

Lol! Your post conveniently ignored my point. Not surprising, it's clear you have some vested interest in this topic and you won't be changing your mind anytime soon.

Foam on indeed

 

[Matt1970]

They did a hell of a lot of voter suppression in 2000. Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote, in spite of Florida having a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government over this exact issue. It, um, did not work out well for them.

I remember that all to well. Al Gore had his commercial running where he said to count every vote while his teams of lawyers were out fighting every ballot tooth and nail. They were televising the court battles on live TV.

 

[emperus]

I remember that all to well. Al Gore had his commercial running where he said to count every vote while his teams of lawyers were out fighting every ballot tooth and nail. They were televising the court battles on live TV.

I'm sure that's what they had televised on Fox News. You should probably pick up a book and read about what really went on behind the scenes.

 

[unixwizzard]

Do you honestly believe Obama will sign the bill if it gets past the Senate?

Yes he will. Even though he will be term limited out, he still needs Wall St. to continue funding the party.

Anybody who thinks that Obama is not in the pocket of the Wall St. big banks is also a fool and an idiot.

Here.. these should be acceptable sources for you liberal types..

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/barack_obama_wall_street_co_conspirator/

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/225434-dems-assail-wall-street-ties-in-administration

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...is-enough-with-obama-s-wall-street-appointees

 

[kage69]

I'm speaking of November 7th itself. I happened to be in Bradenton, FL on November 7th 2000 for (among other things) a meeting with the city officials about a construction project.

You were also speaking of the entire state, you said "Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote" but you supported that by giving a personal account of what you saw and were told in Bradenton, FL. So, whatever it is you witnessed of course happened throughout the entire state, because we're talking 'a hell of a lot of voter suppression' right?

The letter of the Florida Code (which the lawyers brought) required that all absentee ballots have postmarks, but Florida had previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Justice Department after being sued for just this in previous elections.

Gore resisted Lieberman and his advisers and refused to challenge the count of overseas military absentee ballots in his lawsuit contesting the election results. I personally think trying to reject military absentee ballots due to not being postmarked is as sleazy as going to court in an attempt to get unsigned or undated ballots accepted. Neither side should be allowed to pick and choose what rules they follow, and that's certainly what both were doing. On November 7th anyway.

Consequently the state had been accepting military ballots without postmarks, but in small counties the election officials weren't cognizant of this rule and when challenged by well-prepared teams of lawyers (or perhaps just when offered an opportunity to help their guy) they folded. *snip*

From your article:

"Canvassing boards meeting Friday night and Saturday in all 67 Florida counties threw out 1,420 absentee ballots from overseas without opening the envelopes, or 39 percent of the total, according to an unofficial tally by The Associated Press. Reasons for the disqualifications included missing postmarks. Of those that were counted, 1,380 were for Mr. Bush and 750 were for Vice President Al Gore, widening Mr. Bush's overall lead in this state to 930 votes out of almost six million cast."

So an average of 21 ballots per county were tossed for various reasons. You don't know how many of them were disqualified by missing postmarks, but don't want to address all the other ways an absentee ballot can be rejected. Can't disrupt your narrative of Gore and his marauding lawyers now can we?

Small town officials? No, canvassing boards are used for this, and they usually include an election supervisor, judges, county commissioners, maybe their Chair, etc and are subject to Open Meeting laws. I think your notion of small town officials, possibly being corrupt or ignorant of law, just being cowed by them big city lawyers with fancy words is pretty funny. I guess the judges down there are proper Barney Fifes, with as little election law knowledge as spine huh?

I know this can't tarnish your mental image of Gore the saint or compare with a glowing opinion piece from almost a decade after the fact, but it needs to be pointed out.

Ahh, more of the 'don't see things my way, you must love the guy!' tripe from you, classic! Yes, not agreeing with 15 year old election talking points or agreeing with your warped view on what constitutes voter suppression, clearly it points to a mancrush I have for Al Gore. The guy I've bashed for years for being a rich little Senator's son who went to Vietnam not to fight, but to take pictures...while accompanied by bodyguards. And yes, quite silly of me to quote a man who was personally involved with the event that relates directly to what we're talking about. I guess I should have played along and considered Gore responsible for everything that Lieberman had said and done back then.

'A hell of a lot of voter suppression' still not found. A sleazy story, sure, but one that ultimately indicates less about the dems and more about your difficulties with those things called scale and scope.

I appreciate you trying all the same though, kudos.

 

[nickqt]

Yes he will. Even though he will be term limited out, he still needs Wall St. to continue funding the party.

Anybody who thinks that Obama is not in the pocket of the Wall St. big banks is also a fool and an idiot.

Here.. these should be acceptable sources for you liberal types..

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/barack_obama_wall_street_co_conspirator/

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/225434-dems-assail-wall-street-ties-in-administration

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...is-enough-with-obama-s-wall-street-appointees

No, no, no.

Obama is the most socialist, communist US president evah!

 

[glenn1]

But without the separation, virtually every bank was in that situation in 2007. Not just virtually every investment bank, virtually every bank. There is no possible way that virtually all of a subset failing can be worse than virtually all of the superset.

As Eskimospy said, removing the separation allows banks to privatize profit while socializing loss, because some of their assets are government-backed.

Again I think the Europe counter-example disproves your point, but I don't have super strong feelings about bringing Glass-Steagall back. I just don't think it actually does what you think it does.

As for Eskimospy's contention that it "privatizes profit while socializing loss," let's just say I think he's off base on its application for this particular use case. Chinese Wall rules mean the prop trading desks can't access the Fed bucks and the funds are segregated from client assets so I don't understand why it gives unfair competitive advantage. The GSAs have been working under far more (formerly implied, now real) government backing and they didn't need Prop Trading to create an issue. If anything the far bigger concern is that big banks operate under the moral hazard of "Too Big To Fail" which actually does create the risk he cites. However that moral hazard is in play for ALL aspects of bank operations not just the prop trading, and singling out that one small part of their business model for worry is silly. That's like worrying about premature tire wear on a Ford Pinto when the true risk is the fuel tank blowing up.

 

[Jhhnn]

You should step away from the Elizabeth Warren populist Kool Aid for a bit. Even someone as "Republican" as Bill Clinton has said both "Glass-Steagall is no longer appropriate" and that it's repeal actually HELPED in the financial crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-09-23/bill-clinton-on-the-banking-crisis-mccain-and-hillary

Yeh, when Bob got that Z28, then drove himself & Alice into the River, it's a good thing he was there to save Alice.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm sure that's what they had televised on Fox News. You should probably pick up a book and read about what really went on behind the scenes.

I believe it was Cspan and why do I need to read a book about what I saw with my own two eyes?

 

[werepossum]

You were also speaking of the entire state, you said "Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote" but you supported that by giving a personal account of what you saw and were told in Bradenton, FL. So, whatever it is you witnessed of course happened throughout the entire state, because we're talking 'a hell of a lot of voter suppression' right?

Gore resisted Lieberman and his advisers and refused to challenge the count of overseas military absentee ballots in his lawsuit contesting the election results. I personally think trying to reject military absentee ballots due to not being postmarked is as sleazy as going to court in an attempt to get unsigned or undated ballots accepted. Neither side should be allowed to pick and choose what rules they follow, and that's certainly what both were doing. On November 7th anyway.

From your article:

"Canvassing boards meeting Friday night and Saturday in all 67 Florida counties threw out 1,420 absentee ballots from overseas without opening the envelopes, or 39 percent of the total, according to an unofficial tally by The Associated Press. Reasons for the disqualifications included missing postmarks. Of those that were counted, 1,380 were for Mr. Bush and 750 were for Vice President Al Gore, widening Mr. Bush's overall lead in this state to 930 votes out of almost six million cast."

So an average of 21 ballots per county were tossed for various reasons. You don't know how many of them were disqualified by missing postmarks, but don't want to address all the other ways an absentee ballot can be rejected. Can't disrupt your narrative of Gore and his marauding lawyers now can we?

Small town officials? No, canvassing boards are used for this, and they usually include an election supervisor, judges, county commissioners, maybe their Chair, etc and are subject to Open Meeting laws. I think your notion of small town officials, possibly being corrupt or ignorant of law, just being cowed by them big city lawyers with fancy words is pretty funny. I guess the judges down there are proper Barney Fifes, with as little election law knowledge as spine huh?

Ahh, more of the 'don't see things my way, you must love the guy!' tripe from you, classic! Yes, not agreeing with 15 year old election talking points or agreeing with your warped view on what constitutes voter suppression, clearly it points to a mancrush I have for Al Gore. The guy I've bashed for years for being a rich little Senator's son who went to Vietnam not to fight, but to take pictures...while accompanied by bodyguards. And yes, quite silly of me to quote a man who was personally involved with the event that relates directly to what we're talking about. I guess I should have played along and considered Gore responsible for everything that Lieberman had said and done back then.

'A hell of a lot of voter suppression' still not found. A sleazy story, sure, but one that ultimately indicates less about the dems and more about your difficulties with those things called scale and scope.

I appreciate you trying all the same though, kudos.

Read the article, dude. It was every Florida county. Gore didn't resist challenging military ballots, he folded under pressure after two weeks of challenging them - not least because he had no legal grounds to prevail.

And now to be fair I have to defend Gore. It's simply not true that he "went to Vietnam not to fight, but to take pictures". That was his MOS and like any man he has the right to apply for it, but he was selected for that because he was a freakin' Congressman's son at the time. That's not Gore's fault, it's just the hand he was dealt. Just like Bush, military leaders are only too glad when these guys are worthless playboys that don't insist on serving in real combat positions. Gore might actually have wanted to serve in dangerous situations - which some combat journalists certainly do - for all I know. Don't forget also that Gore was a failed divinity school student; he could have legitimately had objections to a combat role beyond his own safety. What I absolutely know though is that his position - relatively cushy, supplied with a body guard - was due to his circumstances. Maybe he played a role, but he easily had the connections to wangle a safer National Guard position like Bush or get deferments like Cheney or Clinton. He went, he served, he accepted some level of personal risk from sniper or booby trap or rocket or mortar or unexploded ordnance or any of the myriad ways death can come to anyone on the battlefield even after the heat of battle has passed. Hell, he could have wrangled a Vietnam post that got him in-theater for political effect, but absolutely kept him out of the field.

I do not like Gore in any shape or fashion, but he went to Vietnam when he need not, went into the field when he need not, and did a job that was at least as dangerous as his officers were comfortable with him doing. Certainly most combat vets did more at more risk, but Gore certainly did more than he had to do. It's a job that is going to be done, that arguably needs to be done. And at the end of the day, he served honorably. People that served in a combat zone as journalists or cooks or truck drivers still served in a combat zone, and unless we have some reasonable evidence of malfeasance or bad behavior, deserve our respect regardless of whether their jobs were the most dangerous. /soapbox

Again I think the Europe counter-example disproves your point, but I don't have super strong feelings about bringing Glass-Steagall back. I just don't think it actually does what you think it does.

As for Eskimospy's contention that it "privatizes profit while socializing loss," let's just say I think he's off base on its application for this particular use case. Chinese Wall rules mean the prop trading desks can't access the Fed bucks and the funds are segregated from client assets so I don't understand why it gives unfair competitive advantage. The GSAs have been working under far more (formerly implied, now real) government backing and they didn't need Prop Trading to create an issue. If anything the far bigger concern is that big banks operate under the moral hazard of "Too Big To Fail" which actually does create the risk he cites. However that moral hazard is in play for ALL aspects of bank operations not just the prop trading, and singling out that one small part of their business model for worry is silly. That's like worrying about premature tire wear on a Ford Pinto when the true risk is the fuel tank blowing up.

Three points. First, being in the "too big to fail" category depends at least partially on whether a firm's assets are federally guaranteed; that's part of the political and business calculations. If part of a firm's holdings must be made good, it makes it much more attractive to save the firm, since letting it fail costs not only the jobs but also the direct cost of paying out the claims. Also, it matters little that bailout money is unavailable to some sectors if bailout money saves the firm. Second, being allowed to participate in both markets naturally allows firms to become bigger and thus more likely to fall under "too big to fail". (This is because it's easier to find a non-competitor with no redundant interests than a competitor, but ironically it contributed on the other side as well since so many investment banks snapped up S&Ls and mortgage companies that turned out to be massively profitable in the short term but not particularly profitable over the long haul once the rules are tightened, so that we get a company that is both much bigger and less sound.) And third, certainly the GSAs led the charge in discarding "outdated metrics" such as income verification and credit history analysis, but the GSAs at any given time hold only a fraction of equity loans. Consequently, had this practice been limited to the GSAs the crash and the bailout would have been hugely less painful. It was the private sector's enthusiastic adoption of these same principles (or lack thereof) both on the front end (willfully falsifying property values and borrower qualifications) and the back end (bundling and mislabeling equities they knew were extremely shaky) that caused the crash to be as severe as it was.

There isn't much on which I agree with Eskimospy, but I agree wholeheartedly that removing the Glass-Steagall separation between investment and savings and loan banks both greatly increased the velocity at which we went under and greatly increased the overall severity. Glass-Steagall's separation was expressly designed to prevent a crash in one sector from taking down another; we eliminated it and less than two decades later we had exactly the kind of Depression-level crash it was designed to prevent.

It's also worth pointing out that the GSAs abandoned sound financial principles in response to Congressional mandates they could not otherwise meet in service to a noble goal - increasing minority and low income home ownership. It went horribly wrong, but it's a noble goal. The private sector abandoned those same sound financial principles in search of profit only. Now I'm a huge believer in the power of the profit motive. I think it's usually THE best societal motivator since most people will work far harder for themselves and their own loved ones than for unknown others. But while I find absolutely nothing distasteful in the profit motive or enlightened self-interest, it's not a particularly noble goal.

(Great walls o'text, Batman!)

 

[OverVolt]

Wow that post should be your new siggy.

 

[glenn1]

Yeh, when Bob got that Z28, then drove himself & Alice into the River, it's a good thing he was there to save Alice.

Sorry but my "Moonbeam style random word salad" translator is broken, you'll have to speak regular English.

 

[werepossum]

Wow that post should be your new siggy.

lol

EDIT: Wouldn't it be funny as hell if that entire post was my siggy and I started making one sentence posts?

Sorry but my "Moonbeam style random word salad" translator is broken, you'll have to speak regular English.

It's uncanny how often Moron bears a superficial resemblance to English until one actually begins parsing the words. Makes me wish I understood it.

 

[Darwin333]

Ugh, just reinstate Glass-Stegal FFS, no need for a billion pages of legislation.

With that said, this is BS and hopefully gets squashed in the Senate or Obama keeps his word. Split rule for the MF'n win, neither side gets to pass their really stupid shit.

 

[Darwin333]

Another point, a lot of what you described the private sector doing was and is black letter law fraud. You start throwing rich assholes in jail for doing shit like this and you will see other rich assholes be much more hesitant to do it. If instead you not only don't throw them in jail but you allow them to keep their ill-gotten gains, you are giving them incentive to do it again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again I think the Europe counter-example disproves your point, but I don't have super strong feelings about bringing Glass-Steagall back. I just don't think it actually does what you think it does.

As for Eskimospy's contention that it "privatizes profit while socializing loss," let's just say I think he's off base on its application for this particular use case. Chinese Wall rules mean the prop trading desks can't access the Fed bucks and the funds are segregated from client assets so I don't understand why it gives unfair competitive advantage.

Unfair advantage lies in the fact that they can play House money against the rubes' money, aka "clients". They can sell bunk investments based on shady loans out the front door while betting against the whole class of such investments out the back door. It maximizes asymmetrical information. You seem to think that the guys in the back don't know what the guys in the front are selling.

The GSAs have been working under far more (formerly implied, now real) government backing and they didn't need Prop Trading to create an issue.

The GSE's became "clients", buying paper from the banks, not just individual mortgages to bundle into securities. See above.

If anything the far bigger concern is that big banks operate under the moral hazard of "Too Big To Fail" which actually does create the risk he cites. However that moral hazard is in play for ALL aspects of bank operations not just the prop trading, and singling out that one small part of their business model for worry is silly. That's like worrying about premature tire wear on a Ford Pinto when the true risk is the fuel tank blowing up.

Proprietary trading is one of the aspects of it all that prompted them to create greater risk- for the rubes.

 

[sportage]

The difference between the two, republicans can be quite anal when it comes to some issues, like marriage equality. And national security. I mean, how many bombers does one really need? Especially at the expense of education, infrastructure, and internal national security i.e. economic security.

Some of these guys base their objection to marriage equality on religion, yet it is obvious they only use religion to play to their base and get re-elected.
So which is worse, someone that believes religion should control who can and who can not get married? Or some politician that uses religion as a political tool to get votes?

Maybe both sides have their misgivings, but history shows only one side has a track record of doing the most long term damage.
Anyone care to guess?

 

[kage69]

Read the article, dude. It was every Florida county

I did, I just wasn't going to indulge your supposition. You submit Gore sent in the crack troops to every county and was responsible of voter suppression, making specific mention of the postmark issue but not making any mention about the 5 counties it involved.
Election workers were getting grief from both sides, and it was US District Judge Lacey Collier who wanted a state wide recount of military absentee ballots to vet them for required dates and signatures. Gore did not sue over the military absentee ballots. One more time: Gore did not sue over the military absentee ballots.

You're incensed about the legality of the non-postmarked ballots being tossed, I get it, are you also irked by illegal ballots being accepted for Bush days prior? I was going to ask you if you thought it was odd that the repubs never really contested the Dems on the legality of previously accepted ballots in their favor, but then I remembered your

"not least because he had no legal grounds to prevail."

Clearly you have your own idea of what's legal, dozens of Floridian lawyers say you're wrong, and were trying to get Gore to seize on it. They wanted nothing more than the GOP to have to explain their illegal ballots being accepted. But given how loose I've already seen you play with details, arguing the merits of multiple lawsuits sounds like another great waste of time.

Regardless, 'a hell of a lot of voter suppression' not found.

And now to be fair I have to defend Gore...*snipped for brevity*

Please don't make me laugh, this beverage is hot! Given all the vitriol and made up shit I've heard you Bush fans say about that other vet gone political, John Kerry, that is fucking gold. The false equivalency with your hero Cheney is duly noted, but really I don't blame a conscientious objector for getting a deferment. I can and do hold anyone who advocates elective war accountable when they exhaust their allowable student deferments, then frantically knock up the wife in time so they can claim an expectant father deferment. That kind of person isn't fit to dust off a grunts boots, let alone send him off to combat. Ditto for assholes who just disappear from the job for 2 years! I don't respect nepotism, sorry. You can carry all the water you want for the chicken hawks and the privileged, I'll save my admiration for enlisted who have generals, admirals, senior politicians, etc for dads but somehow carry on without preferential treatment.

Whatever. I'll take the long winded and needlessly elaborate opinion on Gore's military career to mean you realize I'm not a card carrying member of his fan club. I would have preferred reading about something more applicable, more analogous to the real actions taken by the GOP that prevent people from voting or remove election integrity safeguards, but oh well.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry but my "Moonbeam style random word salad" translator is broken, you'll have to speak regular English.

Righties have the best cognition filters.

 

[MongGrel]

Righties have the best cognition filters.

Hardly.

Is why Lewis Black has done so well and a few comedians, many have no filters at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRAZI3W2RDA

 

[unixwizzard]

I can't believe it.. it's the year 2015 and the lefties are still whining about the 2000 election..

Almost as bad as those who still cry about losing the civil war.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hardly.

Is why Lewis Black has done so well and a few comedians, many have no filters at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRAZI3W2RDA

Gawd. How did we come to the turn where Citi had to unwind Merrill Lynch, anyway?

Maybe that had something to do with the unwinding of New Deal banking policy into Bush era banking policy, huh?

 

[ivwshane]

I can't believe it.. it's the year 2015 and the lefties are still whining about the 2000 election..

Almost as bad as those who still cry about losing the civil war.

I know for a pee brain like yourself following a thread is hard but the only person complaining about gore is a righty.

Here's the original reference to gore.

They did a hell of a lot of voter suppression in 2000. Gore sent teams of lawyers into each Florida county to challenge the military vote, in spite of Florida having a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government over this exact issue. It, um, did not work out well for them.


Agreed. Bring back the Glass-Steagall separation.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I can't believe it.. it's the year 2015 and the lefties are still whining about the 2000 election..

Almost as bad as those who still cry about losing the civil war.

Werepossum is a "lefty"?

 

[nickqt]

I can't believe it.. it's the year 2015 and the lefties are still whining about the 2000 election..

Almost as bad as those who still cry about losing the civil war.

How dare silly libruuls whine about a stolen election!

Move on, amirite?!?