Hickenlooper blows it in CA, gets booed

[22lcidw]

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

Hey, Hentai Row, the only problem with regulations in 2008 is that they weren't being enforced.

The crash happened because the banks got greedy, and the government ignored what they were doing.

Dddddodd/Fffrank....Dddddodd/Fffrank......Ddddodd/Fffrank.......Dodd/Frank! Don't foget them. I havn't. Now lets pray to gaia for some more tragedies.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Or perhaps I didn't really understand your question, since it wasn't constructed very well.

A business doesn't need government regulations to not make poor business decisions. I didi't say that. That's just a weird, simplistic straw man argument you made up attempting to prove a point. And demand is irrelevant. There is great demand for heroin.

Poor business decisions include hurting or negatively affecting consumers in any way, since that consumer would then stop using the service. Since Government regulations are supposedly to stop business from acting that way, you have to have blind faith that the Government actually understands business in order to think regulations are in any way beneficial. In order to have that blind faith, you have to also be too simple to understand that the people implementing these regulations are just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers who lie to you at every opportunity in order to support their narrative.

If there's a demand for heroine, people should be allowed to buy that heroine from a willing dealer. That person using heroine doesn't affect anyone else.

And "No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies." How absolutely, abundantly, delightfully silly and simplistic. Dogmatic jargon, nothing more.

You have the standard, shallow, psuedo-libertarian outlook on all this, convinced that markets can self-police and self-correct. Funny, so did Alan Greenspan, the sainted libertarian Fed Chairman responsible for his share of the Meltdown, a man who ADMITTED he screwed up, and a guy who ADMITTED he didn't understand how the very unregulated financial instruments responsible for the Meltdown (CMOs and CDOs) even WORKED. Oops! Oh, and he's also the guy BEGGED by CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born to regulate toxic, unregulated Credit Default Swaps and laughed her off. Yeah, THAT Alan Greenspan. The guy who thinks just like YOU.

And "since you apparently don't know how business works" makes me smile, as a CFP/ChFC/CLU, having written four books and 30 or so articles on it, with +/- 110 business owner clients. If your credentials are similar, great, we can continue this. If not, I've wasted some time here on just another winger on a message board.
.

If he had the same outlook, he wouldn't have been running for a seat in any public office, he would have been seeking to undermine the Government by starving it of funds, so that it self-destructs instead. The mere fact that he's a politician in the first place should tip you off that anything he does is for the benefit of that Organization, not for the benefit of the people.

Absent of Government, businesses do what's in their own self-interest, which is to make as much money as possible, which requires consumers to buy their products. To that end, they do not need robbers, murderers, and kidnappers telling them how to run their businesses.

I also want to point out that all you gave was a politician stating that he had no idea what he was doing, you did nothing to explain why the Government supposedly needs restrict the freedom of people to use their property as they see fit.

I find it amusing that you called me a psuedo-Libertarian, just because you're too chicken shit to take the Non-Aggression Principal to it's logical conclusion, and instead want to LARP with the other party voters as people who somehow influence the Government in the decisions it makes, despite your input barely making a .1% difference in the chance of legislation passing. You have no idea what a Libertarian is, and neither do any of your other party voters, because if you WERE Libertarians, you wouldn't be using the Government to initiate force against innocent people.

It's riveting that you wrote books, good for you, however that's just an appeal to authority on the subject, you did nothing to explain your position or the supposed logic behind it. YOU'RE just another winger, you just attempt to give the illusion that voting Libertarian means something, despite the fact that you're just as much a part of the blame game the Republicans and Democrats. I actually laughed when you accused me of being a winger, because I actually oppose all rulers, regardless of supposed political stance. I'm an Anarchist, just for the record.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

Hey, Hentai Row, the only problem with regulations in 2008 is that they weren't being enforced.

The crash happened because the banks got greedy, and the government ignored what they were doing.

Ah yes, the banks got greedy by making loans to people who couldn't pay them. Gosh, Joe, you're right, businesses have been looking in the wrong place for money, they should take it from people who don't have it.

Tell me, Joe, if they got greedy, and that's what caused to make those loans, why is it that they have standards in the first place?

Oh wait, it's for that exact reason. It's not like the Government incentivized them to lower their standards further, to increase the amount of homeowners or something. Can't possibly be that. Oh wait...

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Yeah, and he's totally correct to me, winger opinion be damned, because I know I'll be labelled as some right-winger in here for defending that, but I've never felt a Socialist nor Communist government to be any answer to America's problems. Not once in my lifetime. This would seem to be a default position coming from common sense if you paid attention or even lived in this country for any amount of time.

This one interaction with Hickenlooper doesn't reflect the entirety of thought from the Democratic party just as the declarations from the Orange Virus do not reflect the entirety of thought from the Republican party. These are short sighted arguments that refuse to acknowledge the entire picture.

About 90+% of people here use binary arguments. If you oppose any Republican ideas, you're a Socialist (Communist) because... reasons. If you oppose any Democrat ideas, you're a Fascist (racist, misogynist) because... reasons.

These 'reasons' are usually hyperbolic nonsense concocted by wingers whose opinions are usually from a position of ignorance anyway. They don't matter.

Entitlement programs aren't Communism. Safety net programs aren't Socialism. They are classified as Democratic Socialism where the means of production still remains securely in the hands of private capital. These terms have lost all meaning in this echo chamber of mouth breathers called the American political landscape. Many so-called 'experts' are anything but.

That said, I find The Democratic Socialist Green Deal to be unsustainable in its current inception, sorry. Its wording is too vague and wreaks of another ACA-like failure at this point. I also find the attitudes from Congress people like AOC too polarizing to moderates that can't get on board with it yet because it hasn't been explained properly to us how we're supposed to pay for it.

 

[Mac1958]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Yeah, and he's totally correct to me, winger opinion be damned, because I know I'll be labelled as some right-winger in here for defending that, but I've never felt a Socialist nor Communist government to be any answer to America's problems. Not once in my lifetime. This would seem to be a default position coming from common sense if you paid attention or even lived in this country for any amount of time.

This one interaction with Hickenlooper doesn't reflect the entirety of thought from the Democratic party just as the declarations from the Orange Virus do not reflect the entirety of thought from the Republican party. These are short sighted arguments that refuse to acknowledge the entire picture.

About 90+% of people here use binary arguments. If you oppose any Republican ideas, you're a Socialist (Communist) because... reasons. If you oppose any Democrat ideas, you're a Fascist (racist, misogynist) because... reasons.

These 'reasons' are usually hyperbolic nonsense concocted by wingers whose opinions are usually from a position of ignorance anyway. They don't matter.

Entitlement programs aren't Communism. Safety net programs aren't Socialism. They are classified as Democratic Socialism where the means of production still remains securely in the hands of private capital. These terms have lost all meaning in this echo chamber of mouth breathers called the American political landscape. Many so-called 'experts' are anything but.

That said, I find The Democratic Socialist Green Deal to be unsustainable in its current inception, sorry. Its wording is too vague and wreaks of another ACA-like failure at this point. I also find the attitudes from Congress people like AOC too polarizing to moderates that can't get on board with it yet because it hasn't been explained properly to us how we're supposed to pay for it.

Thanks. Along those lines, I just saw this on The Hill: Socialism debate roils Democratic primary

Just like Trump, the GOP and 2016, most of the energy in the Dem party is with the hardcore leftists. Dangerous stuff.
.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Yeah, and he's totally correct to me, winger opinion be damned, because I know I'll be labelled as some right-winger in here for defending that, but I've never felt a Socialist nor Communist government to be any answer to America's problems. Not once in my lifetime. This would seem to be a default position coming from common sense if you paid attention or even lived in this country for any amount of time.

This one interaction with Hickenlooper doesn't reflect the entirety of thought from the Democratic party just as the declarations from the Orange Virus do not reflect the entirety of thought from the Republican party. These are short sighted arguments that refuse to acknowledge the entire picture.

About 90+% of people here use binary arguments. If you oppose any Republican ideas, you're a Socialist (Communist) because... reasons. If you oppose any Democrat ideas, you're a Fascist (racist, misogynist) because... reasons.

These 'reasons' are usually hyperbolic nonsense concocted by wingers whose opinions are usually from a position of ignorance anyway. They don't matter.

Entitlement programs aren't Communism. Safety net programs aren't Socialism. They are classified as Democratic Socialism where the means of production still remains securely in the hands of private capital. These terms have lost all meaning in this echo chamber of mouth breathers called the American political landscape. Many so-called 'experts' are anything but.

That said, I find The Democratic Socialist Green Deal to be unsustainable in its current inception, sorry. Its wording is too vague and wreaks of another ACA-like failure at this point. I also find the attitudes from Congress people like AOC too polarizing to moderates that can't get on board with it yet because it hasn't been explained properly to us how we're supposed to pay for it.

Thanks. Along those lines, I just saw this on The Hill: Socialism debate roils Democratic primary

Just like Trump, the GOP and 2016, most of the energy in the Dem party is with the hardcore leftists. Dangerous stuff.
.

Oh, I know. Identity politics, like religion, alienates, then ruins everything it touches. Both parties seem to be running face first into it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He was booed for using GOP talking points.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I'm a capitalist and I hate seeing what the Right has done to it.
.

So what in your mind have republicans done to capitalism?
I believe Trump is on the right path by cutting business stifling regulations and the economy bears that out.

They have been led to believe that regulation is a bane to capitalism, when in fact, it's a critical component of capitalism.

There is no more vivid example of this than the events that led up to the Meltdown, although I do know that the Right has been misled on that, too.

The question should be how we make needed regulation as efficient and effective as possible, not how we can get rid of it.
.

Than how do you explain Trumps economic successes?
And what meltdown are you referring to?

Momentum and the sugar rush of an exploding deficit.

You're not aware of the Meltdown of 2008?
.

Meh...the only time I've felt any pain was during the oil bust in 85.
Other than that we've done great other than the barry years when our stocks fell drastically.
Our bank stocks went from 6 bucks a share to 26 bucks a share when Trump was elected.

Meh, your personal anecdotes are worthless. You simply reinforce the Boomer/Republican mantra of "I got mine, **** everybody else".

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So what in your mind have republicans done to capitalism?
I believe Trump is on the right path by cutting business stifling regulations and the economy bears that out.

They have been led to believe that regulation is a bane to capitalism, when in fact, it's a critical component of capitalism.

There is no more vivid example of this than the events that led up to the Meltdown, although I do know that the Right has been misled on that, too.

The question should be how we make needed regulation as efficient and effective as possible, not how we can get rid of it.
.

Than how do you explain Trumps economic successes?
And what meltdown are you referring to?

Momentum and the sugar rush of an exploding deficit.

You're not aware of the Meltdown of 2008?
.

Meh...the only time I've felt any pain was during the oil bust in 85.
Other than that we've done great other than the barry years when our stocks fell drastically.
Our bank stocks went from 6 bucks a share to 26 bucks a share when Trump was elected.

Meh, your personal anecdotes are worthless. You simply reinforce the Boomer/Republican mantra of "I got mine, **** everybody else".

You'd be right about that.
I worked my ass off for mine. The rest of the flea bitten public is on their own.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

They have been led to believe that regulation is a bane to capitalism, when in fact, it's a critical component of capitalism.

There is no more vivid example of this than the events that led up to the Meltdown, although I do know that the Right has been misled on that, too.

The question should be how we make needed regulation as efficient and effective as possible, not how we can get rid of it.
.

Than how do you explain Trumps economic successes?
And what meltdown are you referring to?

Momentum and the sugar rush of an exploding deficit.

You're not aware of the Meltdown of 2008?
.

Meh...the only time I've felt any pain was during the oil bust in 85.
Other than that we've done great other than the barry years when our stocks fell drastically.
Our bank stocks went from 6 bucks a share to 26 bucks a share when Trump was elected.

Meh, your personal anecdotes are worthless. You simply reinforce the Boomer/Republican mantra of "I got mine, **** everybody else".

You'd be right about that.
I worked my ass off for mine. The rest of the flea bitten public is on their own.

I know I'm right about that. It's a terrible attitude to have.

 

[Mac1958]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Yeah, and he's totally correct to me, winger opinion be damned, because I know I'll be labelled as some right-winger in here for defending that, but I've never felt a Socialist nor Communist government to be any answer to America's problems. Not once in my lifetime. This would seem to be a default position coming from common sense if you paid attention or even lived in this country for any amount of time.

This one interaction with Hickenlooper doesn't reflect the entirety of thought from the Democratic party just as the declarations from the Orange Virus do not reflect the entirety of thought from the Republican party. These are short sighted arguments that refuse to acknowledge the entire picture.

About 90+% of people here use binary arguments. If you oppose any Republican ideas, you're a Socialist (Communist) because... reasons. If you oppose any Democrat ideas, you're a Fascist (racist, misogynist) because... reasons.

These 'reasons' are usually hyperbolic nonsense concocted by wingers whose opinions are usually from a position of ignorance anyway. They don't matter.

Entitlement programs aren't Communism. Safety net programs aren't Socialism. They are classified as Democratic Socialism where the means of production still remains securely in the hands of private capital. These terms have lost all meaning in this echo chamber of mouth breathers called the American political landscape. Many so-called 'experts' are anything but.

That said, I find The Democratic Socialist Green Deal to be unsustainable in its current inception, sorry. Its wording is too vague and wreaks of another ACA-like failure at this point. I also find the attitudes from Congress people like AOC too polarizing to moderates that can't get on board with it yet because it hasn't been explained properly to us how we're supposed to pay for it.

Thanks. Along those lines, I just saw this on The Hill: Socialism debate roils Democratic primary

Just like Trump, the GOP and 2016, most of the energy in the Dem party is with the hardcore leftists. Dangerous stuff.
.

Oh, I know. Identity politics, like religion, alienates, then ruins everything it touches. Both parties seem to be running face first into it.

As I mentioned earlier, imagine the look on JFK's face if he had been booed for saying this.

The party has lost its shit, it's moved significantly to the Left, and it will deny it up and down.

The thing that worried me the most about Trump's win was that it would drive the Democrats off the rails, BUT they'd STILL win in 2020 with the crazies. We'll be going out of the frying pan and into the fryer.

God DAMN we need a sane third party.
.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The party has lost its shit, it's moved significantly to the Left, and it will deny it up and down

THIS is absolutely true. Unless you have an uncomprom8zing standard, you will ALWAYS see yourself as "moderate" and judge everyone else by where you stand on the political spectrum.

Both parties have moved left, but Democrats FAR left, but they still believe their views are moderate, so, although the Republicans have moved left too, in the eyes of the Fascist Dems, the Republicans are now "extreme right."

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Republicans have moved left too, in the eyes of the Fascist Dems, the Republicans are now "extreme right."

Nah, sorry, I don't buy that. Could you expound?

 

[McRocket]

They have been led to believe that regulation is a bane to capitalism, when in fact, it's a critical component of capitalism.

There is no more vivid example of this than the events that led up to the Meltdown, although I do know that the Right has been misled on that, too.

The question should be how we make needed regulation as efficient and effective as possible, not how we can get rid of it.
.

Than how do you explain Trumps economic successes?
And what meltdown are you referring to?

Momentum and the sugar rush of an exploding deficit.

You're not aware of the Meltdown of 2008?
.

Meh...the only time I've felt any pain was during the oil bust in 85.
Other than that we've done great other than the barry years when our stocks fell drastically.
Our bank stocks went from 6 bucks a share to 26 bucks a share when Trump was elected.

Meh, your personal anecdotes are worthless. You simply reinforce the Boomer/Republican mantra of "I got mine, **** everybody else".

You'd be right about that.
I worked my ass off for mine. The rest of the flea bitten public is on their own.

Oh quit crying...your idea of working your ass off is probably having to Copy and Paste something online.

 

[JoeB131]

Dddddodd/Fffrank....Dddddodd/Fffrank......Ddddodd/Fffrank.......Dodd/Frank! Don't foget them. I havn't. Now lets pray to gaia for some more tragedies.

You realize Dodd Frank wasn't passed until AFTER the crash, right?

 

[JoeB131]

You'd be right about that.
I worked my ass off for mine. The rest of the flea bitten public is on their own.

Born on third base, thought he hit a triple.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah yes, the banks got greedy by making loans to people who couldn't pay them. Gosh, Joe, you're right, businesses have been looking in the wrong place for money, they should take it from people who don't have it.

Tell me, Joe, if they got greedy, and that's what caused to make those loans, why is it that they have standards in the first place?

Oh wait, it's for that exact reason. It's not like the Government incentivized them to lower their standards further, to increase the amount of homeowners or something. Can't possibly be that. Oh wait...

This is where you are little confused, Hentai Row.

The problem was not that the banks were required to loan to poor people.

The problem was that they made loans for McMansions to middle class people who though they could flip them in a few years, and then misrepresented the value of those loans when they sold them as investments.

The CRA was put in place in the 1970's, and it worked just fine for decades.

 

[JoeB131]

As I mentioned earlier, imagine the look on JFK's face if he had been booed for saying this.

The party has lost its shit, it's moved significantly to the Left, and it will deny it up and down.

The thing that worried me the most about Trump's win was that it would drive the Democrats off the rails, BUT they'd STILL win in 2020 with the crazies. We'll be going out of the frying pan and into the fryer.

God DAMN we need a sane third party.

NO, Vichy Mac, we really don't need a second Republican party. The one we have does enough damage when it manages to cheat its way into power.

If the Democrats have gotten more into distributionist mode than it was 20 years ago, it's because the wealth inequality has gotten so bad.

I know you'd be happier with a Democratic Party that would just let the One Percent exploit the rest of us without doing any of that icky social conservatism stuff that makes you uncomfortable at dinner parties.

"Oh, noes, the Democrats support single payer"... which means they want us to be exactly where every other industrialized democracies are.

 

[Mac1958]

Or perhaps I didn't really understand your question, since it wasn't constructed very well.

A business doesn't need government regulations to not make poor business decisions. I didi't say that. That's just a weird, simplistic straw man argument you made up attempting to prove a point. And demand is irrelevant. There is great demand for heroin.

Poor business decisions include hurting or negatively affecting consumers in any way, since that consumer would then stop using the service. Since Government regulations are supposedly to stop business from acting that way, you have to have blind faith that the Government actually understands business in order to think regulations are in any way beneficial. In order to have that blind faith, you have to also be too simple to understand that the people implementing these regulations are just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers who lie to you at every opportunity in order to support their narrative.

If there's a demand for heroine, people should be allowed to buy that heroine from a willing dealer. That person using heroine doesn't affect anyone else.

And "No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies." How absolutely, abundantly, delightfully silly and simplistic. Dogmatic jargon, nothing more.

You have the standard, shallow, psuedo-libertarian outlook on all this, convinced that markets can self-police and self-correct. Funny, so did Alan Greenspan, the sainted libertarian Fed Chairman responsible for his share of the Meltdown, a man who ADMITTED he screwed up, and a guy who ADMITTED he didn't understand how the very unregulated financial instruments responsible for the Meltdown (CMOs and CDOs) even WORKED. Oops! Oh, and he's also the guy BEGGED by CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born to regulate toxic, unregulated Credit Default Swaps and laughed her off. Yeah, THAT Alan Greenspan. The guy who thinks just like YOU.

And "since you apparently don't know how business works" makes me smile, as a CFP/ChFC/CLU, having written four books and 30 or so articles on it, with +/- 110 business owner clients. If your credentials are similar, great, we can continue this. If not, I've wasted some time here on just another winger on a message board.
.

If he had the same outlook, he wouldn't have been running for a seat in any public office, he would have been seeking to undermine the Government by starving it of funds, so that it self-destructs instead. The mere fact that he's a politician in the first place should tip you off that anything he does is for the benefit of that Organization, not for the benefit of the people.

Absent of Government, businesses do what's in their own self-interest, which is to make as much money as possible, which requires consumers to buy their products. To that end, they do not need robbers, murderers, and kidnappers telling them how to run their businesses.

I also want to point out that all you gave was a politician stating that he had no idea what he was doing, you did nothing to explain why the Government supposedly needs restrict the freedom of people to use their property as they see fit.

I find it amusing that you called me a psuedo-Libertarian, just because you're too chicken shit to take the Non-Aggression Principal to it's logical conclusion, and instead want to LARP with the other party voters as people who somehow influence the Government in the decisions it makes, despite your input barely making a .1% difference in the chance of legislation passing. You have no idea what a Libertarian is, and neither do any of your other party voters, because if you WERE Libertarians, you wouldn't be using the Government to initiate force against innocent people.

It's riveting that you wrote books, good for you, however that's just an appeal to authority on the subject, you did nothing to explain your position or the supposed logic behind it. YOU'RE just another winger, you just attempt to give the illusion that voting Libertarian means something, despite the fact that you're just as much a part of the blame game the Republicans and Democrats. I actually laughed when you accused me of being a winger, because I actually oppose all rulers, regardless of supposed political stance. I'm an Anarchist, just for the record.

None of that rant has any connection whatsoever to what actually caused the Meltdown.

You can throw any number of words at this, but I see no indication that you have any understanding of what actually happened. The actual details.

It's clear that you don't know. That's okay. Most people don't. It's very complicated. But this combination of ignorance and arrogance is tedious.
.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You'd be right about that.
I worked my ass off for mine. The rest of the flea bitten public is on their own.

Born on third base, thought he hit a triple.

LOL... I was dirt poor at 18.