wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:26:19 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 3:15:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:11:16 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:35:25 AM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:30:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 10:04:25 AM UTC-4,

wrote:

Clueless again.
The housing failure alone would have simply meant a lot of
people
got
evicted. The thing that made it a global crisis was that the
banks and
mortgage companies leveraged these mortgages with derivatives
that
were worth many times more than the underlying mortgages.

That's wrong too. AFAIK, there was no leveraging that caused the
problems.
The "derivatives" were simply pooling mortgages together into
securities and
selling shares in them to investors. It was fundamentally sound,
not leveraged
and it increased funding for mortgages. The only problem was in
the
lending
practices where banks and institutions made progressively riskier
loans to
people with marginal ability to be able to keep up with the
payments on real
estate that had already appreciated sharply and was over valued.
And then
when the problems started, it was further complicated by the fact
that investors
only knew they had an investment in mortgages, without any way of
knowing
how many of those mortgages were in trouble, what the properties
were really
worth at the moment, etc.

And absent the MBSs, it most certainly would not have simply
meant
a lot of
people got evicted. There were huge losses there, because the
values of the
properties declined, the real estate market turned poor, millions
of properties
were under water, not worth the mortgage value. THAT is what lead
to the huge
losses, those were real and would have been widespread whether
the
mortgages
were part of MBSs, held by Fannie or Freddie (which went
bankrupt),
held by banks,
or held by the seller.


You really need to read more about what derivatives are. One
mortgage
ended up being many times as much in "bets" for and against that
mortgage.

I know exactly what derivatives are. You show us proof for your
claim
that MBSs
resulted in one mortgage being turned into may times as much in
"bets". It
was not a leverage problem with MBSs, it was a leverage problem with
the
mortgages themselves. It was not the MBSs that created the problem.
The problem was lenders making increasingly risky loans to people
with
marginal
ability to pay. ARM loans with low introductory rates, 5% down
mortgages,
mortgages where with two incomes they could barely afford it.
Appraisers
over valuing properties. Those mortgages were then pooled together
into MBS
and sold to investors.

Here's a reference for Fretwell to chew on.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cdo.asp
No problem there. The value is NOT the underlying asset, it is value
derived from that. Basically they take a $50M mortgage package that is
still worth $50M and create another value from that.

That's another lie. An MBS, CDO is taking a bunch of mortgages and
pooling
them together. You know, 1+1+1 =3 not your twelve.



"A CDO is a particular type of derivative because, as its name
implies, its value is derived from another underlying asset. These
assets become the collateral if the loan defaults".

To put this in simple terms this is not a mortgage anymore where the
only value is what you can get for the house when the borrower
defaults. Now they have established an dollar value.

That;s wrong too. The value of an MBS or CDO is whatever investors are
willing
to pay for it based on the underlying assets it represents.


That is based on
the redemption value of the mortgage at full term.

No **** Sherlock, sure the value of a mortgage is partly based on that.
The other
factors are the interest rate of the mortgage, the current interest
rate,
the
probability of default and the value of the underlying asset. MBSs
didn't
change
that.


Not many people
stay with a mortgage, full term and that is particularly true of the
"flippers". They plan on being out before the ARM adjusts.
That is your first inflation of the value.

Cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Then the owner of the CDO
understands that this may be a shaky investment so he buys insurance
(Credit Default Swap). That is where AIG came in. Then these default
swaps get traded like commodities (Why the 2000 CFMA is important).
By the time they are done that $500K mortgage may be trading at well
over a million or more when you add up all of the paper "Derived" from
it.


Cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Again, this is like saying that soybean prices
plummeted
because there were futures and option on soybeans, not because of
Trump's
tariffs that had the soybeans piling up, with no buyers.

When the original mortgage fails, the bank of Iceland or RBS is not
going to foreclose on some LLC in the US and they have no interest in
trying to auction the house, they going after AIG or some other
similar operation that insured that original CDO. That pile of paper
suddenly becomes worthless unless someone bails them out.

Nothing stopped them from foreclosing to recover what they can from
their investment and I would expect that in almost all cases, that is
indeed
exactly what happened. The property was foreclosed on, the proceeds
were
sent to the investors. You act like because someone pools 1000
mortgages
together, suddenly no one can foreclose. So,by your theory, all the
original
owners are still owning and living in those 2009 properties or later
sold
them correct?

You really need to just stop. You're about to come out somewhere in
China
from the hole you've dug.

The people with the tranches got bailed out
long before any foreclosures happened.

Because the bailouts needed to happen quickly
to avoid another great depression or worse.

Some of those properties sat vacant for 5 years
before they finally went through foreclosure.

Because it made sense to wait to foreclose until recovery had happened.

And it took quite a while to work out who actually owned a particular
mortgage too.

Certainly, for the banks anyway who still held the
mortgages themselves but the investors in the derivatives

We arent discussing derivates, we are discussing MBSs.

had already been made whole.

Bull**** on both counts.

Explain that if it was all just based on the value of the house.

He never said that.

He said the value of the mortgages was not leveraged.

MBSs were not based on the value of the house.
The value of the mortgage is the interest rate paid.

You keep ignoring the credit default swaps and
that was where companies like AIG came in.

All irrelevant to your stupid claim that the implosion of much
of the world financial system was cause by banks gambling
with depositors money using derivatives because Summers
got Clinton to change what banks were allowed to do.

Argue that with people smarter than both of us.

No one smarter than both of us run that stupid line.

I will just say if it wasn't because of the deregulation
on where commercial banks could invest and how
derivatives were treated as commodity futures by
CFMA we would not have needed Dodd Frank.

Irrelevant to your stupid claim about what produced the
complete implosion of much of the world financial system.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 05:23:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 10:48:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 3:15:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:11:16 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:35:25 AM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:30:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 10:04:25 AM UTC-4,
wrote:

Clueless again.
The housing failure alone would have simply meant a lot of
people got
evicted. The thing that made it a global crisis was that the
banks and
mortgage companies leveraged these mortgages with derivatives
that
were worth many times more than the underlying mortgages.

That's wrong too. AFAIK, there was no leveraging that caused the
problems.
The "derivatives" were simply pooling mortgages together into
securities and
selling shares in them to investors. It was fundamentally sound,
not leveraged
and it increased funding for mortgages. The only problem was in
the lending
practices where banks and institutions made progressively
riskier loans to
people with marginal ability to be able to keep up with the
payments on real
estate that had already appreciated sharply and was over valued.
And then
when the problems started, it was further complicated by the
fact that investors
only knew they had an investment in mortgages, without any way
of knowing
how many of those mortgages were in trouble, what the properties
were really
worth at the moment, etc.

And absent the MBSs, it most certainly would not have simply
meant a lot of
people got evicted. There were huge losses there, because the
values of the
properties declined, the real estate market turned poor,
millions of properties
were under water, not worth the mortgage value. THAT is what
lead to the huge
losses, those were real and would have been widespread whether
the mortgages
were part of MBSs, held by Fannie or Freddie (which went
bankrupt), held by banks,
or held by the seller.


You really need to read more about what derivatives are. One
mortgage
ended up being many times as much in "bets" for and against that
mortgage.

I know exactly what derivatives are. You show us proof for your
claim that MBSs
resulted in one mortgage being turned into may times as much in
"bets". It
was not a leverage problem with MBSs, it was a leverage problem
with the
mortgages themselves. It was not the MBSs that created the problem.
The problem was lenders making increasingly risky loans to people
with marginal
ability to pay. ARM loans with low introductory rates, 5% down
mortgages,
mortgages where with two incomes they could barely afford it.
Appraisers
over valuing properties. Those mortgages were then pooled together
into MBS
and sold to investors.

Here's a reference for Fretwell to chew on.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cdo.asp
No problem there. The value is NOT the underlying asset, it is value
derived from that. Basically they take a $50M mortgage package that
is
still worth $50M and create another value from that.

That's another lie. An MBS, CDO is taking a bunch of mortgages and
pooling
them together. You know, 1+1+1 =3 not your twelve.



"A CDO is a particular type of derivative because, as its name
implies, its value is derived from another underlying asset. These
assets become the collateral if the loan defaults".

To put this in simple terms this is not a mortgage anymore where the
only value is what you can get for the house when the borrower
defaults. Now they have established an dollar value.

That;s wrong too. The value of an MBS or CDO is whatever investors are
willing
to pay for it based on the underlying assets it represents.


That is based on
the redemption value of the mortgage at full term.

No **** Sherlock, sure the value of a mortgage is partly based on that.
The other
factors are the interest rate of the mortgage, the current interest
rate, the
probability of default and the value of the underlying asset. MBSs
didn't change
that.


Not many people
stay with a mortgage, full term and that is particularly true of the
"flippers". They plan on being out before the ARM adjusts.
That is your first inflation of the value.

Cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Then the owner of the CDO
understands that this may be a shaky investment so he buys insurance
(Credit Default Swap). That is where AIG came in. Then these default
swaps get traded like commodities (Why the 2000 CFMA is important).
By the time they are done that $500K mortgage may be trading at well
over a million or more when you add up all of the paper "Derived"
from
it.


Cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Again, this is like saying that soybean prices
plummeted
because there were futures and option on soybeans, not because of
Trump's
tariffs that had the soybeans piling up, with no buyers.

When the original mortgage fails, the bank of Iceland or RBS is not
going to foreclose on some LLC in the US and they have no interest in
trying to auction the house, they going after AIG or some other
similar operation that insured that original CDO. That pile of paper
suddenly becomes worthless unless someone bails them out.

Nothing stopped them from foreclosing to recover what they can from
their investment and I would expect that in almost all cases, that is
indeed
exactly what happened. The property was foreclosed on, the proceeds
were
sent to the investors. You act like because someone pools 1000
mortgages
together, suddenly no one can foreclose. So,by your theory, all the
original
owners are still owning and living in those 2009 properties or later
sold
them correct?

You really need to just stop. You're about to come out somewhere in
China
from the hole you've dug.
The people with the tranches got bailed out long before any
foreclosures happened.

Again, TARP was all repaid back, they were loans or equity positions. If
you got
temporary, emergency help because your financial situation was dire, would
you
then pay it back and just forget about what you were owed that caused it?
I don't think so.



Some of those properties sat vacant for 5 years
before they finally went through foreclosure.
Explain that if it was all just based on the value of the house.

1+1 = 7 again. The length of a foreclosure isn't determined by the value
of
the house. Foreclosures can be dragged out by legal maneuvers, filing
for
bankruptcy and at the time, there were foreclosures everywhere with the
courts and whole process overloaded.




You keep ignoring the credit default swaps and that was where
companies like AIG came in.

You're ignoring that all that did was transfer risk from one party to
another for
a premium. It was like insurance. When a house burns down, did the
insurance
cause it?

The insurance became an investment itself, having nothing to
do with the original mortgage and traded at much more money.

More mindless bull****.

Do a little homework yourself. What was the total
value of failed mortgages 2005-9? (Maybe a $T)
What was the total economic damage caused by all of
the MBSs, CDOs, and Credit Default Swaps? (Several $T)

The difference is the leverage I was talking about.

Bull**** it is.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:23:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

Get the **** out of humans-only ngs, you filthy senile troll!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:27:04 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

**** off from humans-only ngs, you filthy trolling asshole from Oz!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 11:50:19 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 05:13:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 10:47:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:

You weren't listening.

Sure, it's my listening, even after you pretty much confirmed it here again yesterday,
by saying that you only pointed out that Trump's tax cut benefitted Joe Six pack too.

Maybe I am just not as big a whiner as you and you can't talk about
anything without whining about Trump.

If you want to talk about whiners, the biggest whiner has been Trump. It's always
someone else that's to blame, always someone else to demonize and complain
about. That's what he did for 4 years, instead of doing his job.


In 10 years Trump will just be another unpopular president, along with
some of the others like GW Bush who we don't hear much about today. I
remember when he was the worst president ever too.

Please, don't try to normalize Trump by trying to equate him to Bush or any other
former president. In ten years, Trump will be starting to earn his place in the
history books for the despicable, un-American POS that he is.




That;s yet another lie. I spoke out against the tax cut as being irresponsible
when we already had a $500 bil deficit and the economy was doing OK.
YOU responded again and again, justifying it, saying it was going to many
Americans, not just the rich, never saying it was a bad idea. And the rich
not only got a taste, they got an order of magnitude more benefit than
Joe Sixpack.

Listen I said ANY ****ING TAX CUT was a bad idea. Is that clear
enough?

You sure weren't saying that when you defended Trump's tax cut that helped
double the deficits. Like you confirm now, you just said that it benefitted
Joe Six pack in addition to rich people. And you never said it while Trump
was in office. But now you're concerned about deficits, with Biden in office.


I am the only guy here who seems to think the debt is important.

That's a lie, I spoke out against Trump's tax cut, while you were defending it.
I've spoken out here about the national debt, in many threads directly with you
for years. I spoke out about it again this week.


Your complaint about the cut wasn't that it was a bad idea, only that
you thought the people who pay the most taxes were getting a break.

That's another lie. I spoke about both.

I did say the tax cut was a bad idea, many times. I even suggested we
are not paying enough tax in light of the debt load.

taxes are not just to meet debt load and affect economy

taxes and especially also deductions supposedly reflect policy

one interesting Trump era tax policy was disincentives to charitable giving,

mk5000

Brennan: Oh, good! You got here for the good stuff!
Booth: What good stuff?
Brennan: The MRI. It's an older model but entirely serviceable.
Booth: Okay, for future reference, that's not the good stuff.--Bones

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

On 3/19/2021 9:25 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

The unfortunate consequence of getting rid of Trump was getting Joe.
Not the best choice.



I can see how many would want to get rid of Trump, but just can not
understand how out of all the other democrats that they picked Biden to
even run. The only reason I can think of is that no democrat that
really wanted to be president wanted to go against Trump after what
happened with Clinton. She was a big favoite tuil the votes came in.

Maybe the better democrats thought that would hapen again and did not
want a loss on their record. That or as I think, the democrats will
somehow force Biden out and move Harris up .

I'm sure Sanders would have been far more to your satisfaction. Instead
you got a middle of the roader who believes strongly in negotiation and
compromise. Sorry it didn't go your way.

In article , says...

I'm sure Sanders would have been far more to your satisfaction. Instead
you got a middle of the roader who believes strongly in negotiation and
compromise. Sorry it didn't go your way.




Actually Trump would have been my way. All Biden wants to do now is
cancel anything Trump had done good or bad. I hope all the ones that
voted for him enjoy the higher energy and taxes. Also all the lost
jobs.

Not sure how the unions are that voted for Biden, but I bet many of them
wish they had not voltd for him now.

Sanders would have been another at the bottom of my list. Many of the
democrats seem just wanting to tax the ones with some money and give it
away to potentional voters.

On 3/19/2021 10:04 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:



Actually Trump would have been my way. All Biden wants to do now is
cancel anything Trump had done good or bad. I hope all the ones that
voted for him enjoy the higher energy and taxes. Also all the lost
jobs.

Not sure how the unions are that voted for Biden, but I bet many of them
wish they had not voltd for him now.

Sanders would have been another at the bottom of my list. Many of the
democrats seem just wanting to tax the ones with some money and give it
away to potentional voters.


Biden is looking at taxes, mostly putting back what Trump took away to
increase the deficit. Most of us average people won't see any difference.

We won't really know on jobs until the Covid thing is over.

As for Sanders, he should not even be on the list.

Ralph Mowery wrote
wrote

I'm sure Sanders would have been far more to your satisfaction.
Instead you got a middle of the roader who believes strongly
in negotiation and compromise. Sorry it didn't go your way.

Actually Trump would have been my way. All Biden wants
to do now is cancel anything Trump had done good or bad.

That's overstated. He didn't cancel the virus
bailout stuff or what happened in Syria.

I hope all the ones that voted for him enjoy the
higher energy and taxes. Also all the lost jobs.

Its far from clear that there will be lost jobs given that
the economy should recover well with the vaccine roll
out which is working quite well, one of the best in the
world, tho not as good as the best like Israel and likely
wont be on the monitoring of the result its getting.

Not sure how the unions are that voted for Biden, but
I bet many of them wish they had not voltd for him now.

I think that's unlikely given that it will be a while before
the downsides of dem policy become obvious.

Sanders would have been another at the bottom of my list.

Me too, he is much worse than Joe. But the dems realise
that and have crippled is prospects very effectively.

Many of the democrats seem just wanting to tax the ones
with some money and give it away to potentional voters.

Yes, but the dem system has ensured that they don't get
to be prez. They havent been as effective with congress
but the half terms should fix that, it usually does.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just an asshole like Rod
who always says no.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin
that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced
Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government
can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can
you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and
what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous
President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes
you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret
parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now
that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says
and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you
just an asshole like Rod who always says no.

More of your bare faced lies. I agreed with you about what
Trump did in Syria, and with ******_4 about with what
caused the implosion of much of the world financial system
and with most about vaccines except fools like you.

It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:01:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:11:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just an asshole like Rod
who always says no.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.

It has all been explained to you in excruciating detail on numerous
occasions. I don't know what good it will do to spell it out again.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:25:13 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:11:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just an asshole like Rod
who always says no.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.

It has all been explained to you in excruciating detail on numerous
occasions. I don't know what good it will do to spell it out again.

The only thing I have heard is you saw this as a chance of preventing
Trump from running again and you were willing to ignore everything
else in the impeachment language to get there.
It is not surprising tho.
Democrats are the least democratic people out there.
You want a partisan vote in the Senate to negate what might happen in
the primaries.
You constantly want to ignore the will of the voter. We only have to
look at your "super delegates" to see that.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 22:26:31 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:25:13 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

It has all been explained to you in excruciating detail on numerous
occasions. I don't know what good it will do to spell it out again.

The only thing I have heard is snip

Let me stop you there. I'm not responsible for what you think you haven't
heard. That goes double when you're pretending you haven't heard things
that have been explained to you more than a few times.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 22:18:50 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 22:26:31 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:25:13 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

It has all been explained to you in excruciating detail on numerous
occasions. I don't know what good it will do to spell it out again.

The only thing I have heard is snip

Let me stop you there. I'm not responsible for what you think you haven't
heard. That goes double when you're pretending you haven't heard things
that have been explained to you more than a few times.

In other words you haven't heard me, you just react with a standard
line you heard on MSNBC

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 10:27:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:25:13 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:11:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just an asshole like Rod
who always says no.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.

It has all been explained to you in excruciating detail on numerous
occasions. I don't know what good it will do to spell it out again.
The only thing I have heard is you saw this as a chance of preventing
Trump from running again and you were willing to ignore everything
else in the impeachment language to get there.
It is not surprising tho.
Democrats are the least democratic people out there.
You want a partisan vote in the Senate to negate what might happen in
the primaries.
You constantly want to ignore the will of the voter. We only have to
look at your "super delegates" to see that.

Interesting how you accuse Jim of wanting to ignore the will of the voters,
but you were silent here for two months as he mounted his despicable attempt
to actually do that, with his lies about a stolen election. Those lies lead to
the insurrection, the final attempt to overturn the votes of the people.
And as usual, here you are, defending Trump, still.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 10:27:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:25:13 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:11:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just an asshole like Rod
who always says no.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.

It has all been explained to you in excruciating detail on numerous
occasions. I don't know what good it will do to spell it out again.
The only thing I have heard is you saw this as a chance of preventing
Trump from running again and you were willing to ignore everything
else in the impeachment language to get there.
It is not surprising tho.
Democrats are the least democratic people out there.
You want a partisan vote in the Senate to negate what might happen in
the primaries.
You constantly want to ignore the will of the voter. We only have to
look at your "super delegates" to see that.

Interesting how you accuse Jim of wanting to ignore the will of the voters,
but you were silent here for two months as he mounted his despicable attempt
to actually do that, with his lies about a stolen election. Those lies lead to
the insurrection, the final attempt to overturn the votes of the people.
And as usual, here you are, defending Trump, still.


Have you heard me say the election was stolen or ever support all of
those antics. Cite that. Again I just don't hate Trump enough for you
so I must be a Trumpet.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The question is whether we should twist the intent of impeachment away
from removing a person from office and continuing the prosecution as a
bill of attainder after they leave instead of turning it over to the
justice system as the Constitution states.
The only objective left at that point is preventing them from running
in subsequent elections and THAT is what the primary process was
designed to do.
It would be a scary world if 67 Senators could decide who is and isn't
allowed to run for office, shutting the voters out completely.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:48:23 -0700, Bob F posted for all of us to digest...


On 3/19/2021 9:25 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

The unfortunate consequence of getting rid of Trump was getting Joe.
Not the best choice.



I can see how many would want to get rid of Trump, but just can not
understand how out of all the other democrats that they picked Biden to
even run. The only reason I can think of is that no democrat that
really wanted to be president wanted to go against Trump after what
happened with Clinton. She was a big favoite tuil the votes came in.

Maybe the better democrats thought that would hapen again and did not
want a loss on their record. That or as I think, the democrats will
somehow force Biden out and move Harris up .

I'm sure Sanders would have been far more to your satisfaction. Instead
you got a middle of the roader who believes strongly in negotiation and
compromise. Sorry it didn't go your way.

Now Bob...

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:06:12 +1100, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:43:09 +1100, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's troll**** unread