I can multi-task. One common example is when I read articles on the internet, while playing games on my phone while exercising. I'm doing it now. Well...except instead of exercising, I'm drinking Port. And now, I'm also typing this here blog article, so I'm really outdoing myself!
OK. So I can't really read and article while typing my own. Sue me. But I'm gonna be talking about the article itself.
It seems I went astray at another blog when I dared expressed my opinion about voting. I won't get into the weeds on that score, but it's happened at a couple of them. I can't alter my position because it's the best one. I'll just leave it at that.
Along the way, there were comments referencing Donald Trump which were less than laudatory. Some weren't even true. But while there have always been legit reasons for criticizing the guy, too often those criticisms are a bit too much, and more often than not, irrelevant to question of whether or not he's well deserving of our vote in the upcoming general election. OR, they're insignificant.
In any case, I found this article (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/kamala_s_long_history_of_lousy_leadership_is_revealed_in_a_2002_evaluation.html) noteworthy. I found it so not because of it's exposure of Kamala Harris as a total piece of shit, but for something else I had seen before and upon which I intended to post for public consumption. It goes like this:
In a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books, researchers quantified her human resources problem. They discovered a 92% staff turnover through payroll records.
[snip]
High turnover in the White House isn’t new, but Ms. Harris’ numbers are higher than others.
In the same time span, President Trump experienced a 72% turnover and President Biden had a 77% turnover.
Vice President Mike Pence hired 29 employees during his first year in the Trump administration, and five remained on staff after three years, indicating an 83% turnover rate.
Ms. Harris hired 49 staffers and retained only four three years later.
Many have often cited Trump's admin turnover rate. But it seems he's not among the worst, and even the poor, unfairly derided Mike Pence (The Spineless) couldn't keep his peeps on board.
So the interesting thing for me about this piece is that it stands as another example of the double-standard Trump must endure. He's been rejected because of adultery and womanizing (prior to his presidency), yet Biden "courted" "Dr." Jill while she was still married, and Kamala Harris got "a leg up" by sleeping with a married man. Trump's accused of sexual abuse and all such tales are believed without trial (or after an unethical civil trial) and Biden's assault on Tara Reade has never been investigated, nor has Obama's homosexual affair with his coke dealer.
Now, this piece exposes another double standard regarding "revolving doors" of the Trump administration, which it seems wasn't the worst, even compared to the saintly Mike Pence. There's no details in the article speaking to why staff left any of these people, except for Harris, who is the subject of the piece. We also don't know how many people those percentages represent. That matters.
But we do see again that way too many people are eager and willing to castigate Trump and will do so at the drop of a hat. I'm often accused of being in the bag for Trump. While I do support him for president, believed with damned good reason he was the most qualified for the position versus any of his primary opponents, I'm not so much in the bag as I am how much others who criticize him are just the opposite, and often without just cause.
I believe that Trump gets the heat he does, particularly after his great first term, is because those who attacked him in the beginning don't have the integrity and honor to acknowledge his good work and it kicks their asses knowing that he wasn't the failure they knew he would be. He made them eat crow and now they're pissed they were forced to choke it down.
These stats are just another taste of it.
39 comments:
Let's talk about the number of former Trump staffers who are actively supporting Harris.
"Let's talk about the number of former Trump staffers who are actively supporting Harris."
Right... and about how historically unusual, exceptional it is for that to happen. Such widespread opposition to Trump by very loyal, very conservative former allies should be needed.
Dan
Are you two buffoons referring to people like Gordon Sondland? When you look at the most "notable" people rejecting Trump, you're not dealing with...how did the second buffoon put it?..."very conservative former allies"? This is stupid. Name a "former Trump staffer" and let's talk.
In the meantime, let's consider yet another Dem who's rejected your party...Alan Dershowitz...to join with Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and throw in Elon Musk, too.
But don't stop there. Consider the growing percentage of black voters and young male voters rejecting the Dems to vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter who isn't supporting Trump as much as why they're not. Like you two clowns, the vast majority of those who've been rejecting Trump and continue to have no intelligent reason for doing so. That's absolutely the truth regarding Blogger Village idiot, Dan Trabue. I've heard no one give a compelling reason why Trump shouldn't be president again after a stellar first term.
Name a "former Trump staffer" and let's talk.
By talk, you mean you'll post a bunch of links to American Thinker. You needn't bother, as I am confident that you can find articles there that will trash Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mark Esper, Dan Coats, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Stephanie Grisham, Cassidy Hutchinson, Sarah Matthews, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Anthony Scaramucci, Greg Brower, James Comey, Sofia Kinzinger, Andrew McCabe, General Mark Milley, John Mitnick, Elizabeth Neumann, Richard V. Spencer, Miles Taylor, Olivia Troye, and William H. Webster.
Of course that's just people who concluded Trump was unfit after serving under him.
I've heard no one give a compelling reason why Trump shouldn't be president again after a stellar first term.
Perhaps that's because you never read anything but wingnut propaganda websites like American Thinker.
In the meantime, let's consider yet another Dem who's rejected your party...Alan Dershowitz...to join with Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and throw in Elon Musk, too.
As far as I know, Dershowitz hasn't endorsed Trump or even said he intends to vote for him. Before selling himself to Trump, RFK Jr tried to sell himself to Harris. Unlike Trump, however, Harris wasn't that desperate. As far as the richest man in the world supporting the guy whose wants to cuts his taxes, that's no shock. As far as Tulsi Gabbard goes, I guess the Democratic Party will have to muddle along without her.
What is wrong with this woman? She openly mocks religious believers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICQdrD9fFKc
I am afraid that we will be calling her President Harris in about two weeks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign
There are literally hundreds of former Trump associates, including his own vice president, including former gop president's and their staff, including high-ranking and well-established ultra conservatives who are not only not endorsing hi., but who have thrown their support to the Democrat, Harris. This is entirely unprecedented.
What president running for office was not endorsed by his own vice president and chiefs of staff and so many former allies?
None.
The man is an abomination and an extreme anomaly in US history. Can you admit as much?
Y'all are backing a vulgar, dim-witted idiot and that much is clearly recognized by rational conservatives.
Dan
Dan
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/politics/military-leaders-sound-the-alarm-trump/index.html
Dan
"By talk, you mean you'll post a bunch of links to American Thinker. You needn't bother, as I am confident that you can find articles there that will trash Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mark Esper, Dan Coats, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Stephanie Grisham, Cassidy Hutchinson, Sarah Matthews, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Anthony Scaramucci, Greg Brower, James Comey, Sofia Kinzinger, Andrew McCabe, General Mark Milley, John Mitnick, Elizabeth Neumann, Richard V. Spencer, Miles Taylor, Olivia Troye, and William H. Webster.
Of course that's just people who concluded Trump was unfit after serving under him."
You said, "Let's talk". Making a list is not "talking". It's assuming. That is, you're assuming that because they're voting Harris, or not voting Trump, they have legit reason for it...they're rejection of Trump is meritorious and not some petty squabble wherein they're basically petulant political hacks who are filled with sour grapes.
Now, I don't know all of the people on your list. Of those I do, I have no problem with it. To paraphrase a person who fancies himself intelligent, I guess the Trump campaign will have to muddle along without them.
As to my sources, with AT being among the most commonly referenced, I note that you've never done jack shit to prove anything they've reported as in error. And despite my reliance on AT...their many contributors actually bringing the fucking receipts for what they present...I do indeed look at many sources. And those which are my favorites tend to present leftist crap in context (not something at all common with the leftist sources they'll cite) so you're bullshit dismissal of them is merely cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. But then, you're a lefty, so....
In any case, I don't give a flying rat's ass that anyone rejects Trump. I care about why. Those who reject him give bullshit reasons or don't give a reason at all. Or worse, like you and Dan, so many look for reasons thought to legitimize your irrational hatred for a guy who's proven himself beneficially effective in way no Dem president has ever proven themselves to be.
"Perhaps that's because you never read anything but wingnut propaganda websites like American Thinker."
Again, you don't even read anything I post from that site. You don't do jack shit to rebut or rebuke anything presented within the articles of their many contributors. But worse than that, you do even less to present your alternative choices as legitimate choices, because you have no way to make that absurd argument, that someone like an Obama, Biden or Harris is a better choice for janitor, much less POTUS. You lefties are sick and twisted and the truest threat to "our democracy" than Trump could ever be on his worst day.
" As far as I know, Dershowitz hasn't endorsed Trump or even said he intends to vote for him."
But he ain't voting for the dumb bitch dumb bitches like will support...because despite being Democrat, he ain't a moronic asshole.
"Before selling himself to Trump, RFK Jr tried to sell himself to Harris."
"Selling himself"???? WTF, Vinny? Are you that twisted? It's natural that a Dem would seek to partner up with a Dem. But RFK ain't a marxist and doesn't like the direction you marxists assholes intend to push the nation. He's a Dem, but he doesn't have his head up his ass like you do.
"As far as the richest man in the world supporting the guy whose wants to cuts his taxes, that's no shock."
This "richest man in the world" sees more than his personal tax situation at stake, and only assholes would disparage such a person who can see as clearly as he does. When you choose to keep your head up your ass, it's hard to see clearly. Remove yours from your ass, Vinny. Your family and friends will thank you for it.
I don't know who the anonymous commenter was who posted on October 19, 2024 at 7:45 PM. Normally, I wouldn't have allowed the comment, but the video is of interest. I have to say that it is indeed uncertain whether the dumb bitch was referring to Christians, or Trump supporters, but one would think that those who crap on Trump for the things he says more clearly than this would be concerned about the possibility her statement was about pro-life Americans.
Now for Dan's stupidity, because he's generous in providing such:
"Right... and about how historically unusual, exceptional it is for that to happen. Such widespread opposition to Trump by very loyal, very conservative former allies should be needed."
Dan likes to think that it's significant that these people listed by Vinny are necessarily worthy of concern. Dan's in love with the Lincoln Project because those asshats claim to be conservative. Any conservative who rejects Trump needs a legit reason. No conservative who has rejected Trump has provided one. That doesn't matter to dumbasses like Dan and Vinny. Let me be clear on this point: the excuses provided by these "conservatives" are cheap rationalizations provided as an excuse for their selfish rejection of the one guy who's done more good for America in four years than the eight years of that fraud Obama and the last for years of the moronic Harris/Biden team.
"There are literally hundreds of former Trump associates, including his own vice president, including former gop president's and their staff, including high-ranking and well-established ultra conservatives who are not only not endorsing hi., but who have thrown their support to the Democrat, Harris. This is entirely unprecedented."
Yeah...and it exposes their flawed character. None of these asshats have legit reasons for their rejection of Trump, but liars like Dan think it's significant that these people reject him. Such lying, moronic assholes like Dan and Vinny don't give a crap about the fact that their "lord and savior", Barack Obama, fired a shitload of military brass because they didn't toe the marxist line. (One of them was Mattis.) A lot of these people Dan and Vinny think are significant are whiny little bitches who are pushing back on the fact that their boss didn't think they were the cats. Many of them thought themselves smarter than their boss, and thus they're rebelling. Who cares?
"What president running for office was not endorsed by his own vice president and chiefs of staff and so many former allies?"
There's a first time for everything, you dumbfuck. But it's notable that you choose to believe the problem is Trump and not those who are wetting themselves. What kind of asshole would reject him and actually insist they're going to vote for an empty pantsuit like Harris? How can any intelligent person think it's a bad thing that such stupid people have jumped off the Trump Train?
"The man is an abomination and an extreme anomaly in US history. Can you admit as much?"
I can certainly admit he's an anomaly. But he's no "abomination". YOU'RE an abomination. No one who elevated so many Americans in so short a time after eight years of your "Chosen" incompetent who is still running your party of disaster can legitimately be labeled an "abomination". But you're so fucking morally bankrupt that you're who was warned in Isaiah 5:20.
"Y'all are backing a vulgar, dim-witted idiot and that much is clearly recognized by rational conservatives."
No honest, moral, virtuous person of character would ever cite you in determining what constitutes "rational".
You're one evil motherfucker, Dan. You'll cite anything which aligns with your evil, Christ-hating positions and pretend intelligent people with be persuaded.
Your friend Jesse Albrect delivered "Feodor" some humiliating blows over here. I just could not avoid sharing this with you:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-legacy-of-humble-origins.html?sc=1729459582520#c3691337014703482423
Thanks, Eddy. It was very entertaining and very well done.
Art,
From what I've seen the majority of the "former Trump staffers" are long time civil servants who served P-BO and other administrations as well.
As far as the "big names" (Pence, etc) they are all coincidentally people with whom Trump had a public falling out either during his term or prior to this most recent campaign. We all know Trump is abrasive, and it's not surprising that he rubbed people the wrong way. What IS surprising is how many DFL folks are now supporting Trump.
What Trump has done is to pull together a coalition that is more ideologically broad than any of the last few DFL administrations.
Also remember what happened to the "51 intelligence experts" who assured us that the laptop story was fake or the "97% of climate scientists", both of those two groups turned out to be less than advertised.
Strangely enough, polling is showing Trump doing quite well despite this "scandal" and increasing his share of traditionally DFL leaning demographic groups.
Craig,
I was going to say something similar. It's not a matter of how many Trump staffers withdrew their support. It's who they are and whether they were truly supportive at all, or what their reasons were for moving on.
What we're seeing is that those who have left the Dem Party have specific, logical and obvious reasons for their having done so. Vinny thinks Dershowitz not voting for Trump is as significant as his having rejected the Democrat Party. Leaving the party is like a half vote for Trump, as it constitutes one less on the Dem side of the ledger.
Many of those listed by Vinny and Dan are a collection of malcontents, hold-overs (as you stated) and sour-grapes whiners who are pissed Trump didn't hold their views and opinions as highly as they did...as if he is obliged in some way. Lincoln had issues with his military "experts", and ultimately rejected them as well. Obama shit-canned a host of high level military personnel who didn't see things his way.
We've seen plenty of conservatives who had rejected Trump from the beginning and continue to cling to their original opinions about him without regard to his record as president. Yet somehow we're expected to disregard that record and defer to their stubborn dislike for Trump the man, over Trump the president. JD Vance admitted he was among those people but had the honor and integrity to acknowledge he was wrong about Trump. That doesn't mean he's 100% in lockstep, but no one is required to be.
As to the "51 intelligence experts" and "97% of climate scientists", the "more fit for the presidency than Trump" Joe Biden cited a collection of NeverTrump economists who falsely claimed Trump would destroy the economy if re-elected....because he did such a crappy job the first time.
What's more astounding about the Vinnys and Dans is their inability to cite anything significant which makes their choice the better one. Like all lefties, they simply crap on Trump in any way they can with moronic arguments like this one.
Art,
As long as this is predicated by keeping most of these people anonymous, and not explaining why they don't support Trump/If they ever supported a conservative position/etc it's a pointless claim.
Ultimately who cares, Trump has always been outside of the mainstream of politics and has always had people who don't like him. That they can round up a couple of dozen of them isn't impressive. Let's look at Harris' staff turnover rate and talk to some of them.
Likewise the big name people have had grudges against Trump for years and/or have been dissed by Trump. It's understandable, not news.
Craig,
Well, indeed! That's what makes their attempts like these to demonize Trump so desperate and empty. As is so typical of their kind, they refuse to provide specific detailed arguments about the track records of those they hate and those they support. To that end, I'll be offering up a long interview of one who's very familiar with this unfit candidate who makes Biden look like a freakin' genius.
I'd also like to take a moment to address Vinny's constant disparagement of American Thinker. Dan's made his dislike of it known as well, but I doubt either of them read any link to it which I might provide, much less provide evidence which contradicts that which its many contributors typically provide to support whatever the premise of their articles might be. While it's my routine stop every day, it's not the only source I use. But again, as is typical of their kind, it's not the source. It's the facts presented therein of which they are incapable of contesting.
Making a list is not "talking". It's assuming.
You invited me to name a former Trump staffer. I named more than twenty people who served under Trump. Now you are whining because I did what you asked.
Again, you don't even read anything I post from that site. You don't do jack shit to rebut or rebuke anything presented within the articles of their many contributors.
I've read lots of the crap that you've posted from wingnut sites. Remember how you used to think that postmarks indicate when a letter is received? Remember how you used to think that wrong-county ballots could be removed from vote totals after the votes were counted? That's because your sources are only interested in stoking outrage, and accurately describing the mechanics of voting doesn't serve that purpose. Your sources want you to be ignorant about what actually happened.
You lefties are sick and twisted and the truest threat to "our democracy" than Trump could ever be on his worst day.
For more than two hundred years, the peaceful transfer of power made American democracy the envy of the world. Trump threw that out the window. Currently, he is threatening to use the military to go after his political opponents, further taking the United States down the road to a tin pot dictatorship. The orange fascist is the only threat to democracy in this election.
The fact that your wingnut sources excuse Trump's behavior proves that they are worthless.
"You invited me to name a former Trump staffer. I named more than twenty people who served under Trump. Now you are whining because I did what you asked."
Half of what I asked. My exact words were, "Name a "former Trump staffer" and let's talk." Worse, I didn't even have to scroll all the way up to my original posting of those words. I got them from the first response of yours to it, in which those words were the first of mine you quoted in not responding as requested. Indeed, I would have been quite satisfied with naming one or two of them and getting into their actual reasons for rejecting Trump to vote for Dumbass instead.
"I've read lots of the crap that you've posted from wingnut sites."
Sure you do. Not much in the way of responses directly addressing actual issues presented within them, though. Instead, you just reject them because it's AT. You provide no articles with counter arguments from source you regard as more honest and more accurate (*snicker*).
" Remember how you used to think that postmarks indicate when a letter is received?"
I know they're indications of what a letter or package is received by the USPS. Sometimes, they're indications of when they go out from the USPS. In either case, my argument referred to counting ballots with postmarks which don't indicate they arrived for counting by the established date (different from one state to another depending on existing election laws enacted by their legislatures).
" Remember how you used to think that wrong-county ballots could be removed from vote totals after the votes were counted?"
I remember clumsily presenting the issue, but correcting my response after you jumped on my error as if it served your cause. Out of residency ballots were not supposed to count in the state about which we were discussing (Georgia, as I recall), which was my point. Given how many were shown to have been accepted contrary to Georgia election law, the two options were to re-vote or withhold certification. THAT was the point and you chose to focus on my clumsy presentation of the details which should have so resulted. You like to do that when you have no legitimate, honest argument.
"That's because your sources are only interested in stoking outrage..."
That dishonest people like you aren't outraged by a fraudulent election speaks volumes. My source recount the problems you are keen to hide because the results are your moron won, while the incumbent president who deserved a second term was denied.
"...and accurately describing the mechanics of voting doesn't serve that purpose."
You're purposely confusing their description of events with my poor retelling of them. We know this because it was only my comments you chose to dispute, not the articles themselves.
"Your sources want you to be ignorant about what actually happened."
My sources not only provide accuracy in their reporting, they provide evidence which supports their version of events. You don't even provide evidence of any kind in your weak attempts to dispute them.
" For more than two hundred years, the peaceful transfer of power made American democracy the envy of the world. Trump threw that out the window."
No he didn't. He did nothing to interfere with that transition. The J6 disturbance was not of his making, but only falsely attributed to him by liars who have gullible chumps like you to believe it.
There's a process prior to the counting of Electoral Ballots which provides for arguments regarding that count. It was just beginning when Pelosi stopped the process over the disturbance her people likely initiated for the purpose. She could have resumed that process but pretended "democracy was threatened" in order to bypass it and move to the count. That's because only Democrats are allowed to contest an outcome of an election.
"Currently, he is threatening to use the military to go after his political opponents, further taking the United States down the road to a tin pot dictatorship."
I'll respond by referring to another "right-wing nut job" site, a bastion of conservatism keen on stoking outrage, Snopes:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/21/trump-use-military-opponents/
The very first quote of Trump's was the match which ignited this latest fake-news pants-wetting. No where does he say he would call out the military. He's referring to election day disturbances if he wins. Note he refers what "they" should do to handle such disturbances.
But the worst part is asshats like you pretending abuses of power haven't been running rampant already due to Democrat behavior. We can start with Obama using the IRS to attack conservative groups, and Biden doing so as well, BEFORE getting to the lawfare against his primary political opponent, Trump. Trump refers to the Dems as "the enemy within" because they are. They are those referenced by Lincoln when addressing how the country could be torn apart. The "tin pots" are YOUR people, and you're among their useful idiots.
My sources don't "excuse" Trump behavior. They clarify it in response to the lies your kind tell about him, while your own people cause so much suffering in the meantime.
I forgot about the following gem from Dan:
"What president running for office was not endorsed by his own vice president and chiefs of staff and so many former allies?"
Joe Biden. His own vice president and chiefs of staff and so many former allies colluded to force him to step down, then pretended he did so of his own volition after so recently insisting he was going to win reelection, and now can't bring themselves to speak truthfully on whether or not he's suffering from cognitive decline to an extent which would make him mentally unfit for office.
That's not even a "peaceful transfer of power". That's a coup. So they not only staged one against Trump, but also against their own president!
No he didn't. He did nothing to interfere with that transition. The J6 disturbance was not of his making, but only falsely attributed to him by liars who have gullible chumps like you to believe it.
You're the gullible one. You're the one who believes that Trump haters intentionally disrupted the certification of Biden's election. You're the one who believes that Trump couldn't have guessed that his followers would attack the Capitol, but some mysterious group of Trump haters figured it out and set it in motion.
Of course you're also the one who believes that bankers made hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime loans that they expected to lose money on.
"You're the gullible one."
That's funny.
"You're the one who believes that Trump haters intentionally disrupted the certification of Biden's election."
No. Trump haters intentionally acted in any way they could (from the time he announced is candidacy for the 2016 election) to disrupt his ability to win his most deserved second term. It wasn't "Biden's election" (a most moronic thing to say). It was THE election for POTUS. Nobody wins until the Electoral ballots are counted. They hadn't been up until the time the process was resumed with the ability of members of Congress to speak having been denied.
"You're the one who believes that Trump couldn't have guessed that his followers would attack the Capitol, but some mysterious group of Trump haters figured it out and set it in motion."
Not only did Trump "guess" there could be trouble given the fact he actually draws supporters to his rallies and speeches who don't have to be paid to do so, he offered both Pelosi and the moronic Muriel Bowser 10,000 troops to maintain order in the event such trouble breaks out. His offer was refused. Why? "Optics"? Bullshit. If this alleged "moron" could anticipate the possibility, why couldn't your people?
What's more, we've been shown all manner of video evidence showing those who were actually inciting, with Ray Epps being only one of them. We saw video evidence of people getting violent and Trump supporters pushing back against them. We saw evidence of Capital police launching flash bombs and other things on marchers who were doing no more than marching. And we saw dumbasses very much like yourself pointing to a slapped-together collection of wood to resemble a gallows which stood a about 5' high at most being presented as evidence of a serious attempt to hang Mike Pence. We saw that the crowd which got unruly had arrived some twenty minutes or more before Trump had concluded his speech at the Ellipse of the Capitol complex. We saw other throngs of well behaved people being allowed into the Capitol by Capitol police. We saw all that and more which leads honest people to understand that Trump was in no way responsible for the J6 disturbance. But you asshats pretend disgruntled Trump supporters were without reason for being disgruntled. They certainly had better reason to have done worse, than any of the leftist, BLM/Antifa rioting which had broken out all over the nation in the previous year or more. You're an idiot.
"Of course you're also the one who believes that bankers made hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime loans that they expected to lose money on."
Still with this lie, Vinny? As I've shown, these bankers were forced to provide risky loans and then were appeased with money from GSEs to cover them. They would not have made the loans otherwise, or they would have charge exorbitantly high interest rates.
Like Dan, you're not just an idiot. You're a liar.
Vinny thinks that Trump has the ability to read the minds of people, I seriously doubt it.
It's not clear Vinny seriously thinks!
Well, that's a possibility. Yet he does seem to be assigning certain mystical powers to Trump.
Kinda like a cult member?
Kinda.
Vinny thinks that Trump has the ability to read the minds of people, I seriously doubt it.
I question Trump's ability to read a comic book, much less anyone's mind. Like any good grifter, however, he does understand his marks.
As I've shown, these bankers were forced to provide risky loans and then were appeased with money from GSEs to cover them. They would not have made the loans otherwise, or they would have charge exorbitantly high interest rates.
You didn't show jack shit. I pointed you to reliable sources that refuted this nonsense, but you refused to consider them because they didn't share your political ideology.
Vinny,
"I question Trump's ability to read a comic book, much less anyone's mind."
And you do so on no other basis than your irrational hatred of the man, just like all TDS sufferers.
"Like any good grifter, however, he does understand his marks."
Ah...the "Trump's a con man" trope! Still waiting for one of you haters to lay out the details of the con. Who are his marks, how have they been defrauded and how has he profited? Given what we've lost before and after his term in office, I want to be conned even more should he win this election.
"You didn't show jack shit."
Well, I don't know you personally, Jack, but from what you say here, I know enough.
"I pointed you to reliable sources that refuted this nonsense, but you refused to consider them because they didn't share your political ideology. "
Nice revisionism and projection. You recommended a book which pushed your political ideology and cited snippets from it which I rebuked with facts from various sources. You then rejected my sources because they didn't share your political ideology.
You recommended a book which pushed your political ideology and cited snippets from it which I rebuked with facts from various sources.
Your memory is failing you. I recommended the writings of a financial professional and you wouldn't engage with what he wrote because you couldn't figure out what his political views were.
Some how Vinny believes that Trump who he believes incapable of reading a graphic novel, "comic book" is so condescending, was supposed to "guess" that people would do the opposite of what he spoke about. Idiocy.
Vinny,
You're incorrect once again. It doesn't matter to me the political leanings of someone who presents an argument, though it could indeed indicate why the argument is so wrong. While I might not have ascertained the dude's political affiliation, it's his argument which matters and what I address...to extent I was able based on your renderings of his position.
More to the point, I didn't at all fail to engage because I brought explanations from other economic professionals to bear, to which YOU failed to give the least consideration because of your own preconceived notions and biases.
You seem keen to again bring up this argument you've so badly lost, but the point cannot be corrupted. No one loans to those they feel incapable of repaying without some motivation. They may offer a loan at exorbitant interest rates in order to recoup as much as possible if the risky borrower does indeed default, or they will make the loan if other guarantees are granted, such as a government-sponsored enterprise buying the loans from the lender. This is how lenders were compensated for lending to risky borrowers (or, perceived to be risky), without which they couldn't be assured of any profits.
But hey...if you're willing to lend me about $10,000 dollars on a handshake, let me know. Don't worry about my credit score. I'm sure you'll make a fortune on the deal.
Craig,
Trump-haters and other TDS sufferers have convinced themselves of whatever negative traits they need to believe he possesses in order to rationalize their opposition to him. While you and I can discuss negative moves on his part and still find him the better candidate...because he so blatantly is...those like Vinny and Dan ignore what matters and elevate the insignificant, while not giving a single bit of attention to the many failures and bad ideas of those they insist will be better for us. "Idiocy" doesn't begin to describe that sort of intellectual dishonesty and disorder.
As a barely related aside, one of the many ways Trump and MAGA are the worst is their hateful, harmful attitudes towards lgbtq folks. Here's an article about an ultra-conservative couple who learned to be and do better. May be helpful to read...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/03/us/conservative-christian-coming-out-gay-cec/index.html
The overt active harm being done by conservatives on this issue is real.
Dan
Thanks for the laughs, Dan. Just another piece written from a totally pro-homo perspective. Bad behaviors toward homos are implied but not backed up. I don't take the words of people who succumb to the agenda narrative.
I can't think of anyone I know who is Christian who deals with homo relations as is described in your linked article. If my daughter "came out" as a dyke, I would not act anything like any of the people describe in the article. She would still be my daughter even if she insisted on pushing her dyke ways upon me. I just wouldn't put up with such behavior, regardless of what sinful behavior a child is compelled to indulge. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. And that doesn't include tolerating overtly homosexual anything.
Well, I guess that Dan has broken his silence and jumped back into the fray by hopping on the Any Lie to Elect Harris" train. Trump is incredibly pro-lgb for a republican. That y'all are kowtowing to the tqs is actually harming the lgbs.
I commented at the CNN article and what a surprise, I've been blocked. Don't know if it's temporary, but the comment they provided when they told me I "violated community standards" didn't, unless those standards include being pro-homosexual, which it doesn't state. The actual comments rejected merely state the reality of what Scripture does and doesn't say. The typical pro-mo notion that "God loves everybody" is twisted to pretend He's cool with all behaviors, the intended implication that one can carry one living in a sinful manner and shouldn't be rejected by one's family...Christian or not...regardless. My actual comments were respectful in my opposition, no slurs or slang terms were used as they are here. It's as if I was commenting at Dan's Blog of Lies rather than an alleged news provider.
As is true of the modern progressive, dissent from the preferred narrative is forbidden and will not be tolerated at CNN. I will continue returning to this article until my blocking is lifted or until commenting is closed to everyone.
Post a Comment