Post New

Years ago I stopped watching any cable news or political blogs. It's become so infantile and America - as I predicted on TMF is becoming a tribalistic caste based society - - only the sheltered Americans dont realize it yet. I do read a few articles in the Economist. WSJ and Barron's also. I look at headlines online just to see the trends.

Therefore on this issue I dont know who is for or against.

All I'll say is, I hope Republicans don't start the "No Bailout!" stuff if needed for Regional or Smaller Banks. Yes- I"m annoyed by SVB. One side loves to shout "Trump!" but won't acknowledge there were warning signs after Trump. And the coddled high tech Liberals - couldn't be bothered to spread out deposits - and yeah, sticks in my craw also that they got bailed out.

BUT - and I speak more to Republicans here - be careful if you feel like shouting "Free Market!" vis a vis regional banks.

America and the world are more and more controlled by the Woke, the NeoCons the Liberals who love their advanced degrees, their overprices colleges, their cushy lives, and the dominion it gives them over people - - -and they want MORE. They want to control what we eat, think, say, drive, even the flush in our toilet or water in our laundry. The meat we eat or don't. What we drive. Republicans - do you REALLY want their darlings JP, Goldman, Bank of America to totally run the world? Yeah yeah, Warren shouts at the CEOs - but so what, it's vanity crap.

Think Republicans: Liberals are the party of Big Corporations and Big Banks. And be it guns, pronouns, bible, or whatever - YOU are ostracized and cancelled. Imagine....... one day having to have some sort of "SOCIAL SCORE".....where your stances on Climate, Abortion, ETC can help or hurt you....and you only have a few big huge banks to go to!

Regional and Small Banks are the bankers of the dentist, the doctor, the car lot owner, the diner owner, the flower shop lady, the landscaping owner....etc etc etc. Heck - when I was 24 years old - certainly I had some track record and savings, but it was a small regional bank that allowed me to make a RELATIONSHIP and financed my initial foray into business -- and subsequent projects since. One phone call to the regional boss - -boom, done. Heck the CEO spent quality time with me and to this day we are email buddies.

Being retired early - I HOPE I don't have to start another business or work. For now I don't need credit.

But, if we truly believe in "regular Americans" "small business" - as someone who made it rather-ok in the small business arena, I can say - we must have small and medium sized banks if America is to even sort of stay America.

Food for thought I hope....

All I'll say is, I hope Republicans don't start the "No Bailout!" stuff if needed for Regional or Smaller Banks.

Agree. The dems' plan is to make life hard for them...such that the big banks gobble them up. Look at how some of these places have embraced social credit scores and ESG - that level of private control where the leaders of those companies do the dems' bidding is exactly what they want for the US.

After all. Why bother to enact messy, unConstitutional legislation that's subject to public debate and scrutiny when your private buddies will just do it for you? BTW, this was how Fascist Italy worked. Amazing how the left decries fascism 24/7 while engaging in the exact same behavior.

So that's why small banks need to be propped up.

WiltonKnight: America and the world are more and more controlled by the Woke, the NeoCons the Liberals who love their advanced degrees, their overprices colleges, their cushy lives, and the dominion it gives them over people - - -and they want MORE. They want to control what we eat, think, say, drive, even the flush in our toilet or water in our laundry. The meat we eat or don't. What we drive.

Umm, huh?

--Republicans want complete control over every woman's body.

--GOP-controlled states have passed laws imposing new restrictions on voting.

--GOP-controlled states are pursuing laws to roll back LGBTQ rights.

--Republicans are censoring how public-school teachers can talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation.

--Red states are making it impossible for women to receive medical care after miscarriages.

--Republicans are banning books -- books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or any form of non-procreative sex -- including titles by Nobel Prizing-winning authors.

--Republican representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, along with several dozen co-sponsors, recently introduced a federal version of the 'Don't Say Gay' legislation.

--Republicans want to criminalize gender-affirming care.

--Republicans want to criminalize any negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States.

--Republicans want to ban diversity training.

--Republicans in some states want to eliminate birth control at federally funded clinics.

--Because of the indictment of former president Trump, Jim Jordan wants to defund the DOJ and the FBI (which is interesting because neither is involved in the state-run indictment of Trump).


In addition, you don't know what you're talking about: the low-flow limit on toilets was instituted with the 1992 Energy Policy Act, signed into law by George H.W. Bush. George Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act which included new standards for household appliances and incandescent lamps.

Republicans want complete control over every woman's body.
No. Abortion is a state's issue.

GOP-controlled states have passed laws imposing new restrictions on illegalvoting.

Fixed that for you.

GOP-controlled states are pursuing laws to roll back LGBTQ rights.

No. "Don't say Gay" was a lie from the start. What Republicans want are parents in control over what their kids are exposed to.

Republicans are censoring how public-school teachers can talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation.

No. See above.

Red states are making it impossible for women to receive medical care after miscarriages.

No. You really think any hospital is going to refuse care?

Republicans are banning books -- books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or any form of non-procreative sex -- including titles by Nobel Prizing-winning authors.

No. See above. Why do you think pron should be allowed in middle school libraries?

Republican representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, along with several dozen co-sponsors, recently introduced a federal version of the 'Don't Say Gay' legislation.

No. See above. So far 4 of your points are 100% identical, BTW.

Republicans want to criminalize gender-affirming care.

No. Republicans are against having potentially misguided kids making life altering medical decisions without their parents' consent. Why aren't you?

Republicans want to criminalize any negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States.

No. Republicans want our nation's history told accurately. Tell me. Do you think the 1619 project is an accurate representation of American history?

Republicans want to ban diversity training.

No. Republicans are against privately institutionalized racism. Why aren't you?

Republicans in some states want to eliminate birth control at federally funded clinics.

I doubt this. But let's be fair and award you 1 point.

Because of the indictment of former president Trump, Jim Jordan wants to defund the DOJ and the FBI (which is interesting because neither is involved in the state-run indictment of Trump).

No. The FBI and other agencies have been weaponized against the democrats' political opponents and therefore, they're not doing the job they're supposed to be doing.

That's 1 out of 12.

Me: Republicans want complete control over every woman's body.
Dope1: No. Abortion is a state's issue.

So what... it's republicans in state Houses who are removing those right, not democrats.


Me: GOP-controlled states have passed laws imposing new restrictions on voting.
Dope1: Illegal voting. Fixed that for you.

Well, no, you didn't... Between January 1 and September 27, at least 19 states enacted 33 laws that make it harder for Americans to vote. Republicans made mail voting and early voting more difficult, and imposed harsher voter ID requirements. Those have nothing to do with illegal voting.


Me: Red states are making it impossible for women to receive medical care after miscarriages.
Dope1: No. You really think any hospital is going to refuse care?

Yes.

Surgical procedures and medication for miscarriages are identical to those for abortion, and some patients report delayed or denied miscarriage care because doctors and pharmacists fear running afoul of abortion bans. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion...


Me: Republicans are banning books...
Dope1: No. See above. Why do you think pron [sic] should be allowed in middle school libraries?

Right. Toni Morrison, the Nobel Prize-winning pornographer.


Dope1: No. See above. So far 4 of your points are 100% identical, BTW.

Well, no, they're not. Book banning is not the same as "Don't Say Gay". What makes you think it's the same? Prohibiting instruction about race is not the same. Criminalizing gender-affirming care is not the same as "Don't Say Gay". But your "the parents should be the decision-makers for everything" mantra is 100% identical for anything that you dislike.


Me: Republicans want to criminalize gender-affirming care.
Dope1: No. Republicans are against having potentially misguided kids making life altering medical decisions without their parents' consent. Why aren't you?

Young children -- those who have not yet gone through puberty -- can't medically transition. For minors, parental consent is needed for any form of gender-affirming care.


Me: Republicans want to criminalize any negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States.
Dope1: No. Republicans want our nation's history told accurately.

Umm, no. Or do you think Rosa Parks' race is not an important fact in her life story?


Me: Republicans want to ban diversity training.
Dope1: No. Republicans are against privately institutionalized racism. Why aren't you?

Looks like someone never took a diversity class. BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?


Me: Because of the indictment of former president Trump, Jim Jordan wants to defund the DOJ and the FBI (which is interesting because neither is involved in the state-run indictment of Trump).
Dope1: No. The FBI and other agencies have been weaponized against the democrats' political opponents and therefore, they're not doing the job they're supposed to be doing.

Example, please. Here's one on Trump using the DOJ against his enemies:

The Trump administration pressured the SDNY to investigate prominent Democratic figures such as John Kerry and lawyer Gregory Craig, in a 'clear ' and outrageous' pattern of influence peddling against the president's perceived enemies. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-new...

And another.

The Justice Department under Trump secretly subpoenaed the data of two prominent Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee: the panel's top Democrat Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/11...

And another.

Barr successfully intervened several times to help Trump, by reducing sentences for Roger Stone and attempting to drop its prosecution of Michael Flynn. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/09/trump-and-...


Dope1: That's 1 out of 12.

Thanks for another example that republicans are bad at math.

So what... it's republicans in state Houses who are removing those right, not democrats.

It's back at the state level. Vote as you will.

Well, no, you didn't... Between January 1 and September 27, at least 19 states enacted 33 laws that make it harder for Americans to vote.

Biased statement. Asking for ID is not making it harder to vote.

Yes. (Hospitals would refuse care)

Uhh, sure. Hippocratic oath? Nah.

Right. Toni Morrison, the Nobel Prize-winning pornographer.

So her book was banned in some state? I doubt that.

Well, no, they're not.

Well, yes, they are, because you're conflating the issue under a misrepresented issue helpfully promulgated by the media. Nobody said "Don't say gay". What the Florida law is more about is not teaching 4th graders how to use hamsters and other things.

Young children -- those who have not yet gone through puberty -- can't medically transition. For minors, parental consent is needed for any form of gender-affirming care.

Nope. Since you're citing states, you should know that multiple blue states are pushing these procedures without parental consent:

https://calmatters.org/politics/california-legisla...
The bill will make California a refuge for minors seeking gender-affirming care, similar to how Assembly Bill 1666, which Newsom signed into law in June, made the state a refuge for those seeking abortions.

Sorry, but this is 100% nuts.

Umm, no. Or do you think Rosa Parks' race is not an important fact in her life story?

You dodged the question. Do you think the 1619 Project is an accurate representation of American history?

Looks like someone never took a diversity class. BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?

Nice dodge.

Example, please.

The FBI opened up files on parents at school board meetings. The Steele Dossier and the entire RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA hoax. Others.

You lose.

Yes. (Hospitals would refuse care)

Uhh, sure. Hippocratic oath? Nah.

Who woulda thunk that red state legislators would Trump/negate/cancel the Hippocratic oath such that doctors are afraid of fines and imprisonment for doing their jobs?

Who woulda thunk that red state legislators would Trump/negate/cancel the Hippocratic oat

Literally nobody.

Dope1: Uhh, sure. Hippocratic oath? Nah.

Don't read much, do ya'? Many ERs offer minimal care for miscarriage. One group wants that to change. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/...

Bleeding and in pain, she couldn't get 2 Louisiana ERs to answer: Is it a miscarriage? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/12/...

They Had Miscarriages, and New Abortion Laws Obstructed Treatment. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion...


Dope1: So her [Toni Morrison's] book was banned in some state? I doubt that.

Florida: https://time.com/6143127/toni-morrison-book-bans/

Missouri: https://www.today.com/parents/teens/missouri-schoo...

Utah: https://kutv.com/news/crisis-in-the-classroom/davi...

Virginia: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/banned-books-beloved-...


Dope1: The bill will make California a refuge for minors seeking gender-affirming care, similar to how Assembly Bill 1666, which Newsom signed into law in June, made the state a refuge for those seeking abortions.

Sorry, but this is 100% nuts.


It might help if you read the legislation. Parental consent is required unless "the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse."


Dope1: The FBI opened up files on parents at school board meetings.

Only if they threatened violence at those meetings.


Dope1:You lose.

Ahh, Dope1 declares victory. Congratulations, Black Knight, err, Dope1.

I'm relieved you agree I wasn't sure :)

Back in my 'heyday' many years ago, the small/ medium bank that became my prime source for most things, and that took risk on me as a young, non college educated rookie..... had some great people. Remember "Kelo vs London" where the Supreme said that eminent domain might be used for "public good" - I'm paraphrasing -- meaning this made it easier to take private property. And before the 24/7 Trump Deranged Taliban comes out - YES he used it - YES he was a businessman- YES I'd plow down you're house too if I could pay you for it and build something profitable. BUT - in the end it's the government that enables it.

Back to this....

Anyway Dope1, this banks CEO and top management proudly but not loudly told everyone - they will NOT lend money on projects where land was taken by Eminent Domain.

I worry that one day, the Liberal Ivy Leaguers and the Liberal Big Banks will own all of us. And who knows, it's probably gonna be like that in the end. But I'm hoping regionals can be bolstered, and at least be a speed bump as that all unfolds.

Back in the early 2000s I used to say on TMF - Liberals are the party of the rich. And I so wanted Republicans to get Trumpy on trade and immigration. Since then, with many jobs gone overseas, so many of OUR voters - have become trailer trash, or lower middle class. No longer can many of them have a wife, a kid, a dog, and yearly station-wagon trip to Myrtle Beach. Between Liberals killing the culture and family unit, AND the "new economy" "global economy" stripping men and women of the ability to actually start and raise a nuclear family - we devolved into baby mommies and guns. That used to be just the 'hood. But now, many of our voters are 'hood - and they know it -they hate it - and are lashing out. In a way Trump is their Al Sharpton - think of the analogy you might see merit in it.

What I'm saying now is as outlandish as what I said in 2000's felt back then: OUR side should be the bloody AOC side -- only we should mean it. I'd unionize the sh*t out of Starbucks and Apple. Romney protecting Starbucks? How many Starbucks managers, or consumers votes for him? How many Apple or Google people support Trump or Bush? YET - the Republicans kept joining Dems and giving these guys the protection form union, favorable tax treatment, free trade deals -- and it was MORESO white collar well educated Liberals who got their 401K's fattened up on the backs f poor slave workers abroad -- than it was the average Trumpy.

I'd unionize the crap out of these people - and watch Dems try to stop it and then I'd paint them as "the party of the rich, anti-worker". I'd bring in 1,000,0000 H1 Visas today - and when the Coastal I.T racists come out of woodwork- I'd show some of the highest income minority groups in America how - it was their Liberal classmates in college- who loath them the most.

I'd make this Woke Corporations have no choice but to come to Detroit, Ohio, Kentucky, South Carolina etc and make their goods and damn right, white working class voters would get 50's lifestyles. And it would come at the expense of Liberal CEOs, Liberal 401K'ers, and - as far as Liberal campuses - its time to track salaries and diversity at elite institutions. It's time to track tuition hikes no different than Warren pretends to want to do with Bank CEOs.

I know this sounds outlandish - but Trump - whom I don't care for as a person - - Proved that this platform can win. And guess what - overtime we'd add some diverse growing groups to our tent.

Right now, despite the Supreme Court and the 2016 election win - -our side, is day by day being pushed to the bottom of the totem pole.

I like an America where in 20 years - some of the professors at Harvard - are openly Conservative. Ditto all thru academia and public school Ditto at major networks. Ditto Hollywood. Ditto High Tech.

But right now, the Dems and NeoCons helped make our side poorer and dumber - and the cycle is self perpetuating no different than when Liberals did it to Black Americans way back when.

Reparations? Fairness?

Excise taxes on all advanced degrees. End 401K tax benefits for high level professionals.

Send the money to ALMOST FREE trade school and small business startup where the recipients are not picked by race but by......INCOME. Whites, blacks, Latinos in the heartland would rise socioeconomically in a generation and our side would be the guardian, and a permanent governing majority.

A guy can dream.

Man I'm glad my chips were taken off the table years ago. One of the Corporatist Liberals on TMF is now on this board and this Fool told a few of us " Go ahead, go Galt, someone will pick up the slack" - -well, since then his country is more in debt, more polarized, more violence, more tribal. And the Gilded Age is all but visible.

Latest report from me: 0 federal income taxes for a few years now. This year, will get back $3200 from them.

Typing this while looking at the ocean - proud to me a 'low income American' :)

Wow. What a rant of fallacious nonsense.

If this were a rally, the appropriate cheer would be Brandolini Brandolini Brandolini!

Refuting it point by point would be a waste of time since the ranter clearly ignores facts.

Refuting it point by point would be a waste of time since the ranter clearly ignores facts. - sano

Does it ever occur to you that others may look at you the same away?

Many facts are merely an opinion, no matter how strenuously the holder of that opinion shouts the word "fact".

Does it ever occur to you that others may look at you the same away?

Absolutely. But I have facts to back me up. I just don't have the desire to type them out ad nauseum as others seem willing to do, only to have them ignored by the same group of alt-fact trolls.

Absolutely. But I have facts to back me up. I just don't have the desire to type them out ad nauseum as others seem willing to do, only to have them ignored by the same group of alt-fact trolls. = sano

---------------------

I often feel the same way.

Congratulations,

Indeed. I wanted to see if you'd moved on from your 3 go-to tactics

1. Change the subject and don't address the thread (Check)
2. Make out of context or false, sweeping generalizations in support of #1 (Check(
3. Never, ever stake out a position on anything (Check)

You went 3/3! Congrats. You hit the Political Asylum hat trick.

Dope1: 1. Change the subject and don't address the thread (Check)

Umm, I gave you several links to prove you're completely wrong. You provided nothing by way of facts or links to support your own positions.


Dope1: 2. Make out of context or false, sweeping generalizations in support of #1 (Check

I addressed each of your specific points.


Dope1: 3. Never, ever stake out a position on anything (Check)

Huh? If you're unable to understand my position, you're not very perceptive.


I'm thinking sano is right: it's futile to offer facts and evidence only to have them ignored by the same group of alt-fact trolls.

I'm thinking sano is right: it's futile to offer facts and evidence only to have them ignored by the same group of alt-fact trolls

I've proposed an FAQ page on which facts would be enumerated so that when faced with a brandolinian zone flooded with shit such as the ones you've been refuting factually, you could just provide a link to the FAQ page and relevant fact number.

I've proposed an FAQ page on which facts would be enumerated so that when faced with a brandolinian zone flooded with shit such as the ones you've been refuting factually, you could just provide a link to the FAQ page and relevant fact number. - sano

-----------------

Would you be in charge of enumerating the facts? Asking for a friend.

Many facts are merely an opinion, no matter how strenuously the holder of that opinion shouts the word "fact".

Well, no. The very definition of a fact is something that is true, that actually happened, that exists. A fact may be incomplete, not show all there is to know, but that does not render a 'fact' an 'opinion.'

Different people may have different interpretations of what those facts mean, but there is no such thing as an 'alternate fact'.

bighairymike: Would you be in charge of enumerating the facts? Asking for a friend.

Facts are facts.

For example, it is a fact that Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison's books have been banned in multiple cities, libraries, and states.

And it's a fact that women are finding it increasingly difficult to receive adequate medical care for miscarriages in some states because of their anti-abortion legislation.

And it's a fact that republication legislatures in some states are writing laws to remove rights from LGBTQ+ individuals.

Now, if I were to write that racists and morons love Donald Trump for his support of white supremacy, his misogyny, his pro-Russia stance, his cruelness, his disregard for the Constitution and democracy, and easily fall prey to his grifting, well, that may be a popular and accurate opinion but it's not a fact.

Would you be in charge of enumerating the facts? Asking for a friend.

Of course they would. That's how you maintain control, after all.
Reagan said it best: The problem with our liberal friends is that they know so much that isn't true (paraphrasing). To this day I'd bet that most of the libs here believe that Mueller found all kinds of stuff, that the FBI didn't lie to the FISA court, that Hillary! never paid for the Steele Dossier, that the Steele dossier was true, yadda yadda yadda. The truly committed ones will pick nits with you and say things like "Bbbbbut Hillary! never paid for the dossier. She paid the law firm for campaign research!!!!!" which of course is a willful and mendacious distortion of the truth.

They claim to be fact-based, but in reality are the opposites. The really lost ones will tell you the southern border is secure and that Big Blue cities never defunded their police or aren't experiencing huge rises in crime rates. That's a level of bubbleboy thinking I'd never thought I'd see.

>>Many facts are merely an opinion, no matter how strenuously the holder of that opinion shouts the word "fact". - me<<

Well, no. The very definition of a fact is something that is true, that actually happened, that exists. - goofy

------------------

Ok, criticsm accepted. Is this more to you liking?

Many opinions are expressed as being facts but saying they are facts, no matter how strenuously, does not convert the opinion into a genuine "fact".

"Does it ever occur to you that others may look at you the same away?

Many facts are merely an opinion, no matter how strenuously the holder of that opinion shouts the word "fact"."

Right. Everyone has a reputation. That reputation matters.

"Indeed. I wanted to see if you'd moved on from your 3 go-to tactics

1. Change the subject and don't address the thread (Check)
2. Make out of context or false, sweeping generalizations in support of #1 (Check(
3. Never, ever stake out a position on anything (Check)"

That is intellectually dishonest of you. Why do you act so insulting to others by being dishonest with them?

He literally provided numerous links to show where your assertions were factually wrong. He literally addressed each of your points specifically. It is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

Here is a question for you to bring it back on topic. You falsely asserted that no one was trying to get Toni Morrison novels banned, you have been shown evidence to the contrary. Do you still believe your assertion is true? Can you acknowledge your opponent's point?

<i."To this day I'd bet that most of the libs here believe that Mueller found all kinds of stuff"

Still haven't read the Mueller report have you.

LOL

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.