'He looks like hell': Donald Trump unloads on Glenn Beck after being accused of voting for Obama

I read through that yesterday on the road, and it is full of fallacies.

If those programs were so bad, why did Bush II and the GOP that were in control not fix them?

The research is starting, now, correlate the economic growth trends through the years, find out which party had economic growth and which party people voted in after getting stupid and ended the growth within a year.

There are some segments, such as these gentlemen belong, where denial is an art form, and, while accusing people of low information they bury themselves in disinformation.

Everything that they 'feel' is right is countered by facts, and they have to defend themselves by calling other low information voters.

This trend in America is getting worse, till the country rots away and becomes a wikipedia page on a former country.

 

At first read I thought he was having a laugh. So many twisted facts followed by many more. Low info researchers can disprove most of them with two minutes research on each statement. They'll notice not one trusted site supports any of them and any that do are private bloggers with even more crazy conspiracy tales. Then @jrbiz backs that up calling them "unassailable facts" when they were the exact opposite of that. I woulda spit my coffee out in laughter at that post had I of had one at the time. They definitely live in a parallel universe haha. God bless em.

 

Yes, the parallel universe that I live in is having had to experience, not read about, U.S. politics and history over the past few decades. Having majored in political science in college, I follow politics like others follow sports. I have also had a little experience as an advisor on a couple of local/state political campaigns. So, my "lunatic alternate reality" is based upon direct experience and empirical evidence gathered over the decades.

I realize that it is nowhere near as accurate as the leftwing, self-serving re-write of history that the lamestream press has been shilling for years, but it is all that I have to bring to this thread.

 

Too much 'reality' TV....

If Trump wins, by some small chance on Tuesday, I plan on being an 'I told you so.' person as he wrecks the economy and becomes the tyrant and dictator that they accuse Obama of being.

At least till I am shot or locked up, and, as rabid as some of his followers are, probably shot.

But, I do not think that they have the numbers, although they will cry voter fraud (even though GOP controlled states say it is a tiny number per million votes, like 0.005 or some such), and some might actually take up arms, and die.

Reasonable minds will prevail, and life will move on with Clinton II as the POTUS.

They fail to realize that the right wing people are more vocal and willing to travel greater distances to show up at their support groups, err, rallies, making it seem like there are a lot of them. Truth be told, there are probably fewer Trump supporters than what Romney had in 2012.

There are couples that would vote together for the GOP ticket, but now these couples are splitting their vote, so that is a yuge loss to Trump there. Those are votes that normally would be a given, but the wives can not stand him, so, they are with her. Not a lot on the left side are in this boat.

I do not know by how much, but Trump will lose. If he does win, it will only be with voter intimidation scaring people away.

You use of constant insults is telling, kind of Palin-esque, and, well, sad.

I do notice that the people that vote on the GOP ticket are usually far more insulting of people/things that do not conform to their point of view. I am sure this is one reason that the GOP has to use underhanded tactics in elections.

 

There are no holes, no misstatements, and proof was provided throughout. How many of the big banks went bankrupt? Not a single one. But the government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were encouraged by Bill Clinton to buy garbage subprime loans originated by banks essentially failed and cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Funny how the Labor Force Participation Rate was higher the day Obama took office than it was in 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013, or 2014, or 2015, or 2016, isn't it? And the working-age population is growing, not shrinking.

George W. Bush warned all during his presidency starting in 2001 about the dangers that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed as a result of their massive size. Bush proposed a new agency to oversee the government-sponsored entities but Democrats blocked it all during the presidency:



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

The best part of that article from 2003 is here:

George W. Bush warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and called for tighter regulations due to their soaring portfolios of garbage subprime mortgages starting with his budget proposal in 2001. It was Democrats that insisted all along there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

And so I found the actual George W. Bush fiscal year 2002 budget proposal from April 2001 at the Government Printing Office website where Bush warns about the need for greater regulation of the federal mortgage programs so you can see it:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2002-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2002-PER.pdf

The only people in denial about the impending collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars were Democrats.

 

No, the only fallacies are the ones you create to hide the truth: your Democratic Party created the mortgage crisis and it was overhyped by the liberal media to help get Obama elected. A larger portion of the working-age population was in the job market the day Obama took office than today.

Why are Macy's and a lot of other upscale retailers and restaurants closing? Because the economy is so good?

Simple: they had no legal authority to "fix" them. They made their proposals and Democrats threatened to block them in the Senate via threat of a filibuster. You may recall that in the Senate a simple majority does not get a bill passed by the chamber. They have to have 60 votes to end debate before a bill can be brought to a vote, unlike in the House of Representatives.

So a minority party can still block legislation as Democrats did regarding tighter government regulations of the mortgage market by threatening a filibuster. And they don't need to actually carry-out a filibuster, they just have to threaten to do it. Which they did.

Republicans did not try to circumvent the legislative process and the Constitution like Obama does with his "executive orders" which have been overturned by the Courts left and right.

 

LOL, amazing - liberal delusion at it's best.

Have you actually read the things you have posted in this thread?

Or better yet what Obama, Clinton, Kaine and Biden have been spouting on the campaign trail?

 

Let's start here then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_acquired_or_bankrupted_during_the_Great_Recession

"The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) closed 465 failed banks from 2008 to 2012.[1] In contrast, in the five years prior to 2008, only 10 banks failed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008–present)

 

"In the view of some analysts, the relatively conservative government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) policed mortgage originators and maintained relatively high underwriting standards prior to 2003. However, as market power shifted from securitizers to originators and as intense competition from private securitizers undermined GSE power, mortgage standards declined and risky loans proliferated. The worst loans were originated in 2004-2007, the years of the most intense competition between securitizers and the lowest market share for the GSEs."

Note the bold bit? Who was President then?

"Depending on how 'subprime' mortgages are defined, they remained below 10% of all mortgage originations until 2004, when they spiked to nearly 20% and remained there through the 2005-2006 peak of the United States housing bubble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008

 

And all are SMALL banks. How many BIG banks failed? None. Furthermore, tons of little mortgage orginators failed after the housing bubble started to collapse.

The American banking regulation system is intended to seize control of troubled banks before they fail, selling them to other banks usually with no loss to taxpayers and no disruption of service for customers.

The biggest bank failure resulting in a loss to taxpayers was as result of a bank run caused by Democrat Chuck Schumer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyMac

Banking regulators politely told Schumer to keep his big mouth shut in the future.

 

What do you think would have happened if all the little banks failed then they allowed the big banks to fail?
Your arse would be owned by China as the countries assets were flogged off to it's debtors. They had no choice but to bail them out or learning Chinese really quickly.

 

So you're saying a warning letter from Democrat Chuck Schumer caused the bank to fail?

I'd say then if that is the case then it's also likely that those Republican George Bush warnings caused the whole GFC.

 

Who was president did not matter because the President did not have the legal authority to do anything about it. Do you not understand the law and the separation of powers? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "government-sponsored entities" and were regulated by Congress--not the President of the United States--and operated largely autonomously.

That was the problem that Bush was pointing out way back in 2001--three months after taking office--and hence his call for Congress to create a new system of regulation for them every year of his presidency because of their ballooning size and the risk they posed to the economy and to taxpayers.

Furthermore, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both sold shares of stock to the public but were exempt from regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and were exempt from federal and state taxation as well. All that was created by Congress decades before Bush came along. And not surprisingly at Fannie Mae, under the leadership of former Clinton administration officials Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick (both of whom made tens of millions of dollars in compensation in just a few years working for Fannie Mae), the GSE committed a major accounting fraud. (I guess its easy for Democrats to enrich themselves by committing fraud when they are exempt from regulation by the SEC.)

That's why the Bush administration made its request to Congress and Democrats said there was no problem and blocked creation of a new regulatory body for the GSEs. Only when Fannie and Freddie were in imminent risk of collapse in 2008, and after the Democrats took control of both the Senate and the House, did they finally give in to Bush's 2001 and onward requests to create a new system of regulation for the GSEs but by then it was far, far too late.

You live in a world of fiat where your beloved messiah Barack rules by edict. That is not the way the American system works and is why he is having his executive orders (like sticking "transgender" boys in girls locker rooms and vice versa) challenged by lawsuits and overturned by the courts, such as his illegal amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

Bush had no legal authority to regulate the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because under law they were regulated by Congress, not the executive branch.

And as a little lesson in case you didn't know, the way the American mortgage system worked was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased loans originated by commercial banks which held only a small fraction of their own loans. Fannie and Freddie would buy millions of mortgages from the banks which gives them a profit and frees up capital for them to originate more mortgages. Fannie and Freddie would then package the loans into securities, guarantee them--with taxpayer backing--and sell the securities to investors like insurance companies, pension funds, etc.

Without Bill Clinton pressuring Fannie and Freddie to buy loans originated to low-income and poor-credit borrowers, the banks would have never originated those loans because there would be no place to sell them. But with Fannie and Freddie buying those subprime loans and guaranteeing them with taxpayer backing, at Bill Clinton's insistence, there was now a market for investors to buy those securities (as they were guaranteed) and a place for mortgage orginators to sell their poor quality subprime loans they previously could not originate because they could now unload them onto Fannie and Freddie.

It was Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party (along with Clinton administration insiders Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick who ran Fannie Mae) that created the mortgage crisis and the housing bubble. One more time, please read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

SEPT. 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people...

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.​

Again: Democrats were WRONG and President George W. Bush and the Republicans were RIGHT.

Funny thing: the highest rates of home price appreciation in the country were in the high-crime, "low-income" communities. In the metro area I live in (I live in a suburb), houses that sold for $40,000 in the "low-income" areas in the mid-1990s were selling for $160,000 or more by the mid-2000s. That's a quadrupling of home value in 10 years in the WORST neighborhoods and none of that would have been possible if not for President Clinton insisting on loans being made to low-income and poor-credit borrowers. If you cannot afford a $100,000 house, why not borrow with an "interest only" loan with balloon payments and pay $120,000 for it???

And George W. Bush and his Republicans in Congress were powerless under the law to do anything about it because the GSEs were not regulated by the executive branch and Democrats blocked ALL efforts and tighter regulation from 2001 onward.

I provided to you a direct link to George W. Bush's FY02 budget request submitted in April 2001 where his administration warns about the need of tighter regulation of the GSEs and the risk they posed to the economy.

As with Obamacare and everything else, Democrats were wrong and Republicans were right as they usually are. That's a fact.

 

It was not Chuck Schumer's letter that caused the bank run, it was his press conference drawing attention to the letter. Schumer's comments were about a specific bank that was struggling and banking regulators were preparing to sell off its assets. That's what caused the bank run.

Banking regulators know which banks are struggling and when they reach a certain point, the regulators will move to seize and sell off the bank's assets WITHOUT publicity. If word that a bank is failing goes public, it could trigger a bank run. Remaining quiet, the regulators can sell the bank off to a competitor at little to no loss to taxpayers. And those sales occur very quickly, within hours usually.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121607771017452513

The little banks will have their assets sold to other bigger banks and there is little to no loss to taxpayers. Do you not understand how the system works?

A hundred little banks does not come close to one Wells Fargo.

 

Delusional......

 

I agree that Democrats are delusional. Did you not read any of the evidence provided to you? Or do you just wish to ignore it?

What part of the New York Times 1999 article about Bill Clinton pressuring Fannie to make a market for subprime mortgages did you not understand? Was it the part where the NYT mentions the huge risk Fannie is taking? Or the part where it mentions:

But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

And what part of Bush calling for increased regulation of the GSEs starting in 2001 did you not understand?

Bush could see the possibility of impending disaster. The New York Times could see the possibility of impending disaster. Only Democrats could not see the OBVIOUS.

And how about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/

The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.

The Republican National Committee released a statement after the vote.

"Today with help from their liberal House allies, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi finally got what they have been creating behind closed doors these past months -- a government-run health care experiment that will increase families' health care costs, increase the deficit, increase taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and cut Medicare," the statement said.​

Repubicans were right again and Democrats were wrong again, as they always are.

Democrats created the mortgage bubble and foreclosure crisis, and created soaring health care costs. What other damage could Democrats do? Oh, how about this:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-isis-us-20151120-story.html

Islamic State presence in the U.S. is 'the new normal,' FBI director says

FBI director James B. Comey has warned that Islamic State, an organization that was added to the agency's list of foreign terrorist groups only last year, is now in virtually every state.​

Washington Times - Record Terrorism Arrests in 2015

At least 60 people charged with terrorism-linked crimes this year — a record

The Justice Department has charged at least 60 individuals this year with terrorism-related crimes, an unprecedented number that officials attribute to a heightened threat from the Islamic State and the influence of social media on potential recruits.
​

More Democrat brilliance. Say, you want to see how the murder rate in America's inner cities reversed a 20-year downward trend and shot back up after Obama started making heroes out of criminals killed by police?

 

Wait, wait, now, you are using the 'rigged' media as your evidence? I am now confused.

I did read what you posted, I am just aghast at it.

You are saying that the people that jumped on creating the CFPB did not want to protect the people, which is something that I find surprising. And, well, laughable.
You are saying that the party that uses regulations on businesses to protect people did not want to protect people....
Laughable.

If Bush II had not made a big deal out of no intel the IS would not exist, but the GOP connived people in to thinking that they had WMDs. But it is easier to accuse Obama of 'founding' IS is it not?

Terrorist in the US is not anything new, they are here to stay, and this has been since 2001.....

A record number of arrests, meaning that the Obama Admin is getting better on catching them and protecting us? Or should he do the Bush II methodology and let them build up?

Let's take a look at what an economic crash, caused by the GOP trying to BS the people in to blaming the Democrats, does to an inner city with higher unemployment....

If the left wing did not counter the free willie market with regulations I could understand you believing that they would block any attempt to protect the people.
But, the GOP did not care, and, since it was mortgages that were created after 2004 that caused all the issues, then perhaps the pushing Clinton I did in 1999 did not mean much?

The costs of health care has slowed, and until we get the profit out of it and make it universal, it will do nothing but increase, and, without the ACA, increase in costs a lot faster. The number of places that dropped health insurance from the benefits package, due to rising costs, BEFORE the ACA was amazing, finding a job with that benefit was hard to do.

Keep believing in the fallacies of the right wing, trickle down, business self correction, and the rest. Those policies have caused two great things, Depression and Recession. The party of NO is simply wrong on so many levels, and this new flavor that chose Trump is so much worse for the US, and the world.

The majority see it, nothing is rigged, accept that only a minority were snowballed in to believing so.

 

pa

I posted a link to a 1999 New York Times article. Bill Clinton was president at the time. Nobody said it was "rigged" against him. And even in the biased liberal left news articles, there is usually a nugget of truth--or the full truth--buried at the end of the article where most low information voters will never read to.

You are aghast at the truth.

The Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) was created in 2010--long after the mortgage bubble created by Democrats.

1999 < 2010

And the stupidity of mandatory minimum credit card payments and such has nothing to do with anything that would have prevented the Democrat-created foreclosure crisis.

What is laughable is that you actually believe that Democrats help anyone when they only hurt people.

Nobody ever heard of ISIS before Obama took office. In January 2014, ISIS started conquering territory, taking city after city after city in several different middle-east countries. Obama did nothing about it. Well, he did blame Bush for the the "power vacuum" created by installing democracy in Iraq, as if ISIS in Yemen had anything to do with that.

Timeline: The Rise of ISIS

Pay close attention at the lack of ISIS activity before January 2014.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

April 3, 1991: Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.

21-30 Sep 1991 IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.​

http://www.un.org/press/en/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material.​

The GOP "connived" the United Nations into thinking Iraq had WMDs and nuclear aspirations continuously from 1991 through the start of the Iraq invasion? Them Republicans sure are tricky people, huh?

​

Bill Clinton let the 9/11 hijackers into the country and Obama is letting terrorists in by the tens of thousands.

There have been more successful terrorist attacks on American soil under BHO than any other president.

That must be why health insurance costs are skyrocketing all over the country because of Obamacare, right?

Here's the deal: health insurance today is ridiculously expensive--double or triple what it was before Obamacare started 3 years ago--and has such high out-of-pocket expenses that millions of people cannot afford to use their much higher health insurance Obamacare legally requires them to buy!

Fact is that non-profit health insurers and for-profit insurers all over the country are losing tons of money because of Obamacare. And there is no profit in a non-profit, is there? No.

Because Democrats screwed up the individual health insurance market so badly they should be trusted controlling the entire health care industry? That's insane. Some people are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Say, did you know that the higher the Democrat vote in a community the lower is the academic achievement? It's true. I bet you could never figure out why.

No, it was not.

Every time you spend a dollar of your own free will, that's trickle-down economics in action.

Wrong. Democrats made the Great Depression what it was with their massive tax increases and made the Great Recession (which was not so great as it lasted less than 18 months) by creating the mortgage bubble and foreclosure crisis.

The "party of no" was right when it said that Obama's bogus "stimulus" was a waste of taxpayer money and loaded with increased welfare spending which does not create jobs.

The "party of no" was right about the risk of Fannie and Freddie collapsing because of Democrat policies and refusal of tighter regulations on them.

The "party of no" was right about Obamacare causing health insurance costs to skyrocket.

The "party of no" was right about increased terrorism that would result of Obama was elected.

The "party of no" was right that Obama would blow up the federal budget if he was elected (he has run nearly $8 TRILLION in budget deficits since taking office in January 2008).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z1.xls

That must be why Democrats oppose voter ID requirements which would prevent voter fraud, right?

 

Your posts are so long winded but it seems your partisan attitude shines through all of them.

If Democrats do something then that's bad and the country suffers.
If Republicans do the exact same thing that's fantastic and the country benefits.

Listen to yourself. You're spruiking nonsense. With posts so long it's not worth responding to.

 

Are your reading unskewed polls of something.


The budget always takes a hit when an economy needs to be fixed. FDR did it too, and the GOP HAD to put a stop to that, as people like the left wing get people back to work policies so much, after the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover fiasco, that they kept electing him.
FDR's policies spent like hell too, and, had almost ended the Depression when World War 2 started.
Given time Obama could have done the same, and fixed the budget, but, NO was the word....

Did you really believe that the businesses would correct all of the mess made? Do you really believe that they could?

This is the government doing it's job for the people, and not making them overly suffer due to corporate greed.

But, then again, you were hyped up till Comey backstepped on the emails too.....

And, the party is ready to lose, already talking about impeaching Clinton. The GOP will continue to wreck this nation, and, people like you will have to own it. They have promised more gridlock, and you can own it.

lol, I was a centrist, till Romney, and now I am a full lefty. I am not sure if the GOP went too far right and I stayed, or what, but now that I can see that the GOP's policies have never been good for this country I feel much better.

Now, do yourself a favor, since you have gotten in to looking things up. Check out all of the economic trends this nation has had, see when they started, usually one year after a new Democrat takes over, and see when the ended, usually within a year a new GOPer taking over. This is due to an automatic market contraction where people with money brace themselves for the right wing policies.

If Trump were to be elected monthly job increases would cease the middle of next year, and businesses would start closing about December, as it happens every time. But, Trump will lose, so there are not any worries...