Trump most ignorant, incompetent individual to hold presidency

I thought dick and jr were terrible.

Took us to war on lies fufilling their neocon dreams. Destabilized the entire middle east and got many of our young people maimed and.killed for nothing.

Took a balanced federal budget to trillion dollar deficits in 8 short years.

Put us into the deepest recession since the great depression.

They were really bad

But this trump character takes the cake. His divide and conquer rhetoric. His position on every issue. His slash and burn methods of policies. His inability to accept criticism. His nasty personal attacks on individuals that do disagree with him. His defiance of the rule of law.

He is a disgusting person with absolutely no business as the President of the United States. A complete embarrassment to the office.

code1211 said:

Link?

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0RP1arsw-GenKEQuZHkxOhD6xsBReM1q4JLxXvR4NwAck

SouthernDemocrat said:

Dude, do you know how trend lines and statistically relevant correlations work? You don't compare disparate time periods just because they are both "first terms". You compare the years that bookend each other. Thus a relevant trend line would be 2014 through 2019 as you would be comparing the last 3 years of the Obama presidency to the first 3 years of the Trump presidency and thus your comparison would include relatively similar economic conditions.

Click to expand...

You indicated that you felt that Trump was producing some really bad results.

In the laundry list of items that I posted showing that he's actually producing some outstanding results, I mentioned that the rate of growth in the national debt has slowed.

Everything I posted is true and is based on actual, real world facts.

You then produced that ridiculous and fallacious chart showing something unrelated to the real world. It compared about 1 cherry picked year of Obama to about 2 years of Trump and the chart uses data that is inaccurate.

I appreciate that you address me as "Dude". It really adds weight to your arguments in a "not really" kid of a way.

code1211 said:

You indicated that you felt that Trump was producing some really bad results.

In the laundry list of items that I posted showing that he's actually producing some outstanding results, I mentioned that the rate of growth in the national debt has slowed.

Everything I posted is true and is based on actual, real world facts.

You then produced that ridiculous and fallacious chart showing something unrelated to the real world. It compared about 1 cherry picked year of Obama to about 2 years of Trump and the chart uses data that is inaccurate.

I appreciate that you address me as "Dude". It really adds weight to your arguments in a "not really" kid of a way.

Click to expand...

You are arguing a strawman. I stated that it is ridiculous to compare yearly deficits during the worst recession since the Depression and the worst Financial Crisis in the entire postwar era, to today. That is just a stupid comparison.

I then pointed out that a reasonable comparison would be to compare years that bookend each other, as then you would be comparing deficits under similar economic conditions. When you do that, Trump has very high deficits for a growing economy. Now you might say they don't matter or that he is doing a great job just the same, but be that as it may, his deficits during a period of economic growth are very high.

Simon W. Moon said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0RP1arsw-GenKEQuZHkxOhD6xsBReM1q4JLxXvR4NwAck

Click to expand...

WaPo is paywalled for me.

I'm not going to pay for propaganda.

Might it be possible to post a pull quote that supports your point?

code1211 said:

WaPo is paywalled for me.
I'm not going to pay for propaganda.
Might it be possible to post a pull quote that supports your point?

Click to expand...

:shrug:

SouthernDemocrat said:

You are arguing a strawman. I stated that it is ridiculous to compare yearly deficits during the worst recession since the Depression and the worst Financial Crisis in the entire postwar era, to today. That is just a stupid comparison.

I then pointed out that a reasonable comparison would be to compare years that bookend each other, as then you would be comparing deficits under similar economic conditions. When you do that, Trump has very high deficits for a growing economy. Now you might say they don't matter or that he is doing a great job just the same, but be that as it may, his deficits during a period of economic growth are very high.

Click to expand...

So: If, if, if, if, and if, then this?

Just to help you return to reality, the "Great Recession ended in June, 2009, four months after Obama was elected and BEFORE even one solution from Obama hit the streets.

Obama's failed policiess prolonged the recessionary effects to 2013 and beyond.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

Simon W. Moon said:

:shrug:

Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.

A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago ... ended with no tangible results...

John Huber, ... look[ed] into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.

“Your recommendations should include whether any matters not currently under investigation warrants the opening of an investigation, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources or further investigation, and whether any matters would merit the appointment of a Special Counsel,” Sessions wrote.​

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused by your reference.

I made a comment on Brennan and you post an exoneration of Hillary.

Are you implying that Brennan was a dupe of Hillary's? I don't get the connection your making.

code1211 said:

I'm a little confused by your reference.
I made a comment on Brennan and you post an exoneration of Hillary.
Are you implying that Brennan was a dupe of Hillary's? I don't get the connection your making.

Click to expand...

If you wanted to know, you could go back through the threaded conversation.

Anyway, do you suppose Brennan will be put in jail by Trump (like you said) before Kween Killary is indicted for Seth Rich and Vince Foster?
Or will Kween Killary be indicted after Brennan has been put in jail?

code1211 said:

So: If, if, if, if, and if, then this?

Just to help you return to reality, the "Great Recession ended in June, 2009, four months after Obama was elected and BEFORE even one solution from Obama hit the streets.

Obama's failed policiess prolonged the recessionary effects to 2013 and beyond.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Name one recession caused by a financial crisis in any fully developed country, anywhere in the world, anytime in the entire post war era, that saw rapid GDP growth immediately afterwards.

Hint, you can't.

That is all neither here nor there though. The fact is once the economy was growing at a reasonable pace, deficits under Obama were far lower than they are under Trump. Whether you think that matters or not is up to you, but it is a fact just the same.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Name one recession caused by a financial crisis in any fully developed country, anywhere in the world, anytime in the entire post war era, that saw rapid GDP growth immediately afterwards.

Hint, you can't.

That is all neither here nor there though. The fact is once the economy was growing at a reasonable pace, deficits under Obama were far lower than they are under Trump. Whether you think that matters or not is up to you, but it is a fact just the same.

Click to expand...

Are you in grade school?

The recession in 1990-91 was caused by the S&L crisis. Same general causes, but the one in 2008-09 was more widespread due to the consolidations rising from the ending of the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall under Clinton.

Warnings stated weakly by many were dismissed by those who could have made helpful changes in our Congress.

In every post WW2 recession, including the 1990 one, the return to the previous normal occurred at about the same speed as the departure from the previous normal occurred.

Under Obama's policies, that pattern was wrecked.

That is all we can say with certainty. Perhaps the world would have ended without Obama as a savior. Perhaps the world would have worked as it always had previously without his tampering.

We obviously cannot rewind history to find out.

code1211 said:

Are you in grade school?

The recession in 1990-91 was caused by the S&L crisis.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was caused by a drop in consumer confidence during a time of very restrictive Federal Reserve Policy.

The S&L crisis was contained by the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Same general causes, but the one in 2008-09 was more widespread due to the consolidations rising from the ending of the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall under Clinton.

Warnings stated weakly by many were dismissed by those who could have made helpful changes in our Congress.

Click to expand...

That is laughable. All the financial deregulation and derivatives deregulation that proceeded the financial crisis was authored and championed by Pill Gramm.

Lets look at actual history. The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 resulted in years of slow growth in Southeast Asia and that was in worldwide economy that was booming. It took Sweden years to recover from their financial crisis in the early 90s.

This is economics 101, financial crisis always take years to recover from: Why Was the Last Recovery Slower Than Usual? Actually, It Wasn’t | Stanford Graduate School of Business

This notion that presidents, whether they have a D or an R after their name, have much to do with the economy is nonsense. No one wakes up and thinks, "a Republican won, I am going to buy a bigger house", or "A Democrat won, I am going to hire more employees." Businesses and individuals make their decisions bashed upon economic conditions, which the president and who controls congress have very little to do with. There are Republican states with booming economies, and Republican states with anemic economies. There are Democratic states with booming economies and Democratic states with crap economies. You have to get all the way down to the major city level to see where politicians can make that much of a difference on an area's economic growth or stagnation.

You look at GDP growth by year since 1990 and see if you can draw any correlation between economic growth and who is in the White house. • U.S. - GDP growth by year 1990-2018 | Statista

You can't. It's all based on trends and economic fundamentals that have nothing to do with who is in Washington. Bush got far too much blame for the Great Recession and Clinton far too much credit for the economic boom of the 90s. Trump's GDP numbers are on the same trend line as his predecessor. If we have a recession in a year, it probably won't be Trump's fault. If he loses this year and we have a huge boom in GDP growth in 2 years, it probably won't have anything to do with who beats him.

SouthernDemocrat said:

No it wasn't. It was caused by a drop in consumer confidence during a time of very restrictive Federal Reserve Policy.

The S&L crisis was contained by the Resolution Trust Corporation.




That is laughable. All the financial deregulation and derivatives deregulation that proceeded the financial crisis was authored and championed by Pill Gramm.

Lets look at actual history. The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 resulted in years of slow growth in Southeast Asia and that was in worldwide economy that was booming. It took Sweden years to recover from their financial crisis in the early 90s.

This is economics 101, financial crisis always take years to recover from: Why Was the Last Recovery Slower Than Usual? Actually, It Wasn’t | Stanford Graduate School of Business

This notion that presidents, whether they have a D or an R after their name, have much to do with the economy is nonsense. No one wakes up and thinks, "a Republican won, I am going to buy a bigger house", or "A Democrat won, I am going to hire more employees." Businesses and individuals make their decisions bashed upon economic conditions, which the president and who controls congress have very little to do with. There are Republican states with booming economies, and Republican states with anemic economies. There are Democratic states with booming economies and Democratic states with crap economies. You have to get all the way down to the major city level to see where politicians can make that much of a difference on an area's economic growth or stagnation.

You look at GDP growth by year since 1990 and see if you can draw any correlation between economic growth and who is in the White house. • U.S. - GDP growth by year 1990-2018 | Statista

You can't. It's all based on trends and economic fundamentals that have nothing to do with who is in Washington. Bush got far too much blame for the Great Recession and Clinton far too much credit for the economic boom of the 90s. Trump's GDP numbers are on the same trend line as his predecessor. If we have a recession in a year, it probably won't be Trump's fault. If he loses this year and we have a huge boom in GDP growth in 2 years, it probably won't have anything to do with who beats him.

Click to expand...

The highlighted portion of your post reveals that you are either severely misinformed or just blindly partisan and fully departed from reality.

The conditions promoting the financial crisis were the result of decades of changes under both political parties by all people involved.

The actual devaluation of the bundled assets was the result of the entire American population taking advantage of pretend financial gains in the forms of mortgages they could not afford and loans against value that was "appreciated" out of thin air.

You need to understand the cause effect of the financial crisis to understand how it happened and why. You do not.

code1211 said:

The highlighted portion of your post reveals that you are either severely misinformed or just blindly partisan and fully departed from reality.

The conditions promoting the financial crisis were the result of decades of changes under both political parties by all people involved.

The actual devaluation of the bundled assets was the result of the entire American population taking advantage of pretend financial gains in the forms of mortgages they could not afford and loans against value that was "appreciated" out of thin air.

You need to understand the cause effect of the financial crisis to understand how it happened and why. You do not.

Click to expand...

Actually it was caused by the end of Glass–Steagall. Letting the investment banks into the mortgage market was a grave error. The investment banks created a security called collateralized debt obligations. Basicly a security made up of pieces of mortgage backed securities. These CDO's were labeled with a AAA rating and sold to investors around the world. There was a huge market.for.them.

Wall street needed mortgages to create more of them. They created a market for mortgages that couldn't be satisfied. Along.comes the mortgage originator. Mortgage brokers were not needed any longer. Anybody could go in the mortgage business. If you were breathing you could.get a mortgage. Wall Street was buying.them as fast.as they could fill them out.

Wall street.had.a other angle too. They knew the CDO's made up of subprime no doccument mortgages were bad. So what did they do. They bought credit default swaps on the fraudulent paper they were selling. What is a.credit.default swap? Why it is insurance but they can't call it insurance because insurance is regulated. Now the banks had already sold the paper but.they didn't need to own it to buy a credit default swap on it and.since.they knew that paper was bad betting it would go bad was a good deal for them. AIG saved Goldman Sacs when all the others were going down the tubes.

Anyway it all took a dump, the little guys toom the hit and even paid for the wall street bailout. Pretty absurd to me.

code1211 said:

The highlighted portion of your post reveals that you are either severely misinformed or just blindly partisan and fully departed from reality.

The conditions promoting the financial crisis were the result of decades of changes under both political parties by all people involved.

The actual devaluation of the bundled assets was the result of the entire American population taking advantage of pretend financial gains in the forms of mortgages they could not afford and loans against value that was "appreciated" out of thin air.

You need to understand the cause effect of the financial crisis to understand how it happened and why. You do not.

Click to expand...

You should not be so condescending. The financial crisis resulted from financial institutions offering creative financing like 80/20 loans and 90/10 loans, a lack of regulation on appraisers, and the packaging of mortgage loans into mortgage securities that were then sold to other institutions and backed by worthless derivatives.

As to who made all this deregulation possible, it was indeed authored and championed by Phil Gramm. See The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Sure, both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations pushed for an "ownership society" where basically everyone was a homeowner, but the deregulation that made mortgage securitization and the deregulation of the derivatives markets were authored and championed by Phil Gramm.

SouthernDemocrat said:

You should not be so condescending. The financial crisis resulted from financial institutions offering creative financing like 80/20 loans and 90/10 loans, a lack of regulation on appraisers, and the packaging of mortgage loans into mortgage securities that were then sold to other institutions and backed by worthless derivatives.

As to who made all this deregulation possible, it was indeed authored and championed by Phil Gramm. See The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Sure, both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations pushed for an "ownership society" where basically everyone was a homeowner, but the deregulation that made mortgage securitization and the deregulation of the derivatives markets were authored and championed by Phil Gramm.

Click to expand...

Graham leach Bliley act. Old phil grahm. Republican deregulator. He was famous for Enron. Power deregulation. All this deregulation ends in disaster. Reason oil prices went to $150 a barrel was that comodities modernization act. Before that you had to have skin in the game to trade comodities. After you could buy oil or any other comodities with very low margins and no intention of taking delivery. Been a really bad deal.

rickc said:

Graham leach Bliley act. Old phil grahm. Republican deregulator. He was famous for Enron. Power deregulation. All this deregulation ends in disaster. Reason oil prices went to $150 a barrel was that comodities modernization act. Before that you had to have skin in the game to trade comodities. After you could buy oil or any other comodities with very low margins and no intention of taking delivery. Been a really bad deal.

Click to expand...

Phil Gramm caused more economic hardship this century than any man on earth and by a wide margin.

rickc said:

Actually it was caused by the end of Glass–Steagall. Letting the investment banks into the mortgage market was a grave error. The investment banks created a security called collateralized debt obligations. Basicly a security made up of pieces of mortgage backed securities. These CDO's were labeled with a AAA rating and sold to investors around the world. There was a huge market.for.them.

Wall street needed mortgages to create more of them. They created a market for mortgages that couldn't be satisfied. Along.comes the mortgage originator. Mortgage brokers were not needed any longer. Anybody could go in the mortgage business. If you were breathing you could.get a mortgage. Wall Street was buying.them as fast.as they could fill them out.

Wall street.had.a other angle too. They knew the CDO's made up of subprime no doccument mortgages were bad. So what did they do. They bought credit default swaps on the fraudulent paper they were selling. What is a.credit.default swap? Why it is insurance but they can't call it insurance because insurance is regulated. Now the banks had already sold the paper but.they didn't need to own it to buy a credit default swap on it and.since.they knew that paper was bad betting it would go bad was a good deal for them. AIG saved Goldman Sacs when all the others were going down the tubes.

Anyway it all took a dump, the little guys toom the hit and even paid for the wall street bailout. Pretty absurd to me.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I'm not an expert, but I did speak with folks in the loan industry and you seem to be presenting what they presented with one omission.

The bundles sold between financial organizations contained various loans that were no longer being maintained as the borrowers had actually simply walked away from their obligations.

Loans held by financial organizations are their assets. If the loans are no longer be repaid, those assets no longer exist. Financially, it's like the properties burned down and no longer had any value at all.

Interesting little tid bit for those who are having trouble making their mortgage payment, the loan provider will do almost anything to help you avoid default.

Because so many loans had been abandoned by the borrowers, the value of the bundles purchased were suddenly DE-valued substantially and the institutions left "holding the bag" collapsed.

Who was at fault for the collapse? Anyone who helped relax the post depression constrictions on borrowing, anyone who borrowed, anyone who over leveraged, and anyone who refinanced since about the mid 90's.

That's pretty much all of us.

Trump most ignorant, incompetent individual to hold presidency

It's not even close. And don't forget his amoral escapades.

SouthernDemocrat said:

You should not be so condescending. The financial crisis resulted from financial institutions offering creative financing like 80/20 loans and 90/10 loans, a lack of regulation on appraisers, and the packaging of mortgage loans into mortgage securities that were then sold to other institutions and backed by worthless derivatives.

As to who made all this deregulation possible, it was indeed authored and championed by Phil Gramm. See The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

Sure, both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations pushed for an "ownership society" where basically everyone was a homeowner, but the deregulation that made mortgage securitization and the deregulation of the derivatives markets were authored and championed by Phil Gramm.

Click to expand...

And every politician who voted to relax any Post-Depression safeguards over the intervening 70 years against imprudence by financial institutions.

The S&L Fiasco of the late 80's early 90's was the first dawning of the major problems.

So much for the oft-repeated ridiculous claim the thread is mostly conservative.