OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[coldfish]

her main accomplishment is being a major player in securing basic health care for millions of american children, by the way. after being beaten down on health care in her husband's first term, she came back for more and got something done. also...

- negotiated a cease fire in the middle east
- championed women's rights around the globe, including during her husband's administration when those efforts were frowned upon
- copenhagen climate change
- largely responsible for sanctions on iran, including getting chy-na and russia to participate
- normalization of cuban relations
- pay equity act (whether token legislation or not)
- did a HELL of a lot for NY after 9/11, particularly for first responders when republicans didn't want to fully fund their health care (surprise, surprise)

she's worked her ass off. nobody disputes that.

I hesitate to even participate on this because any attack on Hillary is automatically viewed as support for Trump by some. This is actually the first time I have seen anyone actually say that Hillary has a long list of accomplishments.

Just notes:
- the middle east situation deteriorated significantly when she was SOS. Any ceasefire agreement she negotiated was a joke. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.
- Championing women's rights. That's an accomplishment? Talking about something is not an accomplishment.
- Copenhagen. Same thing. That was an empty piece of paper the day it was written.
- Iran? Seriously? They have extended their reach through the middle east over the past few years. Any dealings with Iran by the US have been abject failure lately.
- Cuba happened several years after she left
- Pay equity act. Again, token efforts.

Overall, she has an AWFUL list of accomplishments. The one time she was in charge of something (SOS) it went very poorly. Her time in the senate was non descript and she has no other leadership experience other than that. Virtually every governor who has ever been nominated to run for president has a longer list of leadership accomplishments.

3) glass-steagall reversal, while quite possibly a bad thing, is not thought to have contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008

Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

[Mech Engineer]

her main accomplishment is being a major player in securing basic health care for millions of american children, by the way. after being beaten down on health care in her husband's first term, she came back for more and got something done. also...

- negotiated a cease fire in the middle east
- championed women's rights around the globe, including during her husband's administration when those efforts were frowned upon
- copenhagen climate change
- largely responsible for sanctions on iran, including getting chy-na and russia to participate
- normalization of cuban relations
- pay equity act (whether token legislation or not)
- did a HELL of a lot for NY after 9/11, particularly for first responders when republicans didn't want to fully fund their health care (surprise, surprise)

she's worked her ass off. nobody disputes that.

I hesitate to even participate on this because any attack on Hillary is automatically viewed as support for Trump by some. This is actually the first time I have seen anyone actually say that Hillary has a long list of accomplishments.

Just notes:
- the middle east situation deteriorated significantly when she was SOS. Any ceasefire agreement she negotiated was a joke. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.
- Championing women's rights. That's an accomplishment? Talking about something is not an accomplishment.
- Copenhagen. Same thing. That was an empty piece of paper the day it was written.
- Iran? Seriously? They have extended their reach through the middle east over the past few years. Any dealings with Iran by the US have been abject failure lately.
- Cuba happened several years after she left
- Pay equity act. Again, token efforts.

Overall, she has an AWFUL list of accomplishments. The one time she was in charge of something (SOS) it went very poorly. Her time in the senate was non descript and she has no other leadership experience other than that. Virtually every governor who has ever been nominated to run for president has a longer list of leadership accomplishments.

3) glass-steagall reversal, while quite possibly a bad thing, is not thought to have contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008

Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

Honestly, from my perspective, most politicians haven't really accomplished much before they run for president. About Hillary as Secretary of State...that is a very tough job. You go and look back at most of them, they have messed up a lot in terms of results. The problem is it is a much tougher job than even the president when you count accomplishments. You are trying to do something great without any power with people(like in the middle east) who don't listen to anything you say. You cannot blame anyone on the middle east. It is just an impossible task. It is a nightmare to even contain many of those problems forget solving them.

And, we know most Senators don't do much either especially when your party is not in power like it was for Hillary. I am not making excuses for Hillary but what I am saying is most Senators/SOS haven't done much like her. About Iran, I think whoever it is (Hillary, Obama, Kerry or somebody else)....it is a good starting point. What they had been doing wasn't working either. You have to look from the other side too. The challenge now is the next step and how they don't mess up after a few years with Iran. It is really a unsolvable problem if you keep just being hard on them.

All that said, she is no angel or has a long list of great accomplishments. But, trying to make a list of accomplishments(I know she is doing that) is going to be scrutinized and beaten up. It is like Thibs time as a coach....he didn't win in the playoffs. He is never considered as a great coach like Pop or Phil.

All we can hope is she listens to smart people and grows as a leader and hires the right people. That is where having Bill Clinton might help if she wins.

[League Circles]

her main accomplishment is being a major player in securing basic health care for millions of american children, by the way. after being beaten down on health care in her husband's first term, she came back for more and got something done. also...

- negotiated a cease fire in the middle east
- championed women's rights around the globe, including during her husband's administration when those efforts were frowned upon
- copenhagen climate change
- largely responsible for sanctions on iran, including getting chy-na and russia to participate
- normalization of cuban relations
- pay equity act (whether token legislation or not)
- did a HELL of a lot for NY after 9/11, particularly for first responders when republicans didn't want to fully fund their health care (surprise, surprise)

she's worked her ass off. nobody disputes that.

I hesitate to even participate on this because any attack on Hillary is automatically viewed as support for Trump by some. This is actually the first time I have seen anyone actually say that Hillary has a long list of accomplishments.

Just notes:
- the middle east situation deteriorated significantly when she was SOS. Any ceasefire agreement she negotiated was a joke. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.
- Championing women's rights. That's an accomplishment? Talking about something is not an accomplishment.
- Copenhagen. Same thing. That was an empty piece of paper the day it was written.
- Iran? Seriously? They have extended their reach through the middle east over the past few years. Any dealings with Iran by the US have been abject failure lately.
- Cuba happened several years after she left
- Pay equity act. Again, token efforts.

Overall, she has an AWFUL list of accomplishments. The one time she was in charge of something (SOS) it went very poorly. Her time in the senate was non descript and she has no other leadership experience other than that. Virtually every governor who has ever been nominated to run for president has a longer list of leadership accomplishments.

3) glass-steagall reversal, while quite possibly a bad thing, is not thought to have contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008

Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

Honestly, from my perspective, most politicians haven't really accomplished much before they run for president. About Hillary as Secretary of State...that is a very tough job. You go and look back at most of them, they have messed up a lot in terms of results. The problem is it is a much tougher job than even the president when you count accomplishments. You are trying to do something great without any power with people(like in the middle east) who don't listen to anything you say. You cannot blame anyone on the middle east. It is just an impossible task. It is a nightmare to even contain many of those problems forget solving them.

And, we know most Senators don't do much either especially when your party is not in power like it was for Hillary. I am not making excuses for Hillary but what I am saying is most Senators/SOS haven't done much like her. About Iran, I think whoever it is (Hillary, Obama, Kerry or somebody else)....it is a good starting point. What they had been doing wasn't working either. You have to look from the other side too. The challenge now is the next step and how they don't mess up after a few years with Iran. It is really a unsolvable problem if you keep just being hard on them.

All that said, she is no angel or has a long list of great accomplishments. But, trying to make a list of accomplishments(I know she is doing that) is going to be scrutinized and beaten up. It is like Thibs time as a coach....he didn't win in the playoffs. He is never considered as a great coach like Pop or Phil.

All we can hope is she listens to smart people and grows as a leader and hires the right people. That is where having Bill Clinton might help if she wins.

You're right on most things you say here. No, most politicians aren't particularly more "accomplished" than her. The only ones that you can really grade well are the people who have been executives like Governors because you can better determine the parameters and results.

That said, Hilary's true, enthusiastic supporters (the relative few that there are - mostly women who, understandably, may be somewhat biased due to women being shut out of politics so much), tend to paint her as some super qualified, accomplished person. They'll often even paint time as first lady as some sort of accomplishment which is laughable (yeah she did such an awesome job of being someone's wife), and similar to Trump blaming Hilary for Bill's cheating. To me, it's a disgrace that "first lady" is even a term we use or worth of discussion. Smells like royal times. We won that war.

[Mech Engineer]

I hesitate to even participate on this because any attack on Hillary is automatically viewed as support for Trump by some. This is actually the first time I have seen anyone actually say that Hillary has a long list of accomplishments.

Just notes:
- the middle east situation deteriorated significantly when she was SOS. Any ceasefire agreement she negotiated was a joke. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.
- Championing women's rights. That's an accomplishment? Talking about something is not an accomplishment.
- Copenhagen. Same thing. That was an empty piece of paper the day it was written.
- Iran? Seriously? They have extended their reach through the middle east over the past few years. Any dealings with Iran by the US have been abject failure lately.
- Cuba happened several years after she left
- Pay equity act. Again, token efforts.

Overall, she has an AWFUL list of accomplishments. The one time she was in charge of something (SOS) it went very poorly. Her time in the senate was non descript and she has no other leadership experience other than that. Virtually every governor who has ever been nominated to run for president has a longer list of leadership accomplishments.



Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

Honestly, from my perspective, most politicians haven't really accomplished much before they run for president. About Hillary as Secretary of State...that is a very tough job. You go and look back at most of them, they have messed up a lot in terms of results. The problem is it is a much tougher job than even the president when you count accomplishments. You are trying to do something great without any power with people(like in the middle east) who don't listen to anything you say. You cannot blame anyone on the middle east. It is just an impossible task. It is a nightmare to even contain many of those problems forget solving them.

And, we know most Senators don't do much either especially when your party is not in power like it was for Hillary. I am not making excuses for Hillary but what I am saying is most Senators/SOS haven't done much like her. About Iran, I think whoever it is (Hillary, Obama, Kerry or somebody else)....it is a good starting point. What they had been doing wasn't working either. You have to look from the other side too. The challenge now is the next step and how they don't mess up after a few years with Iran. It is really a unsolvable problem if you keep just being hard on them.

All that said, she is no angel or has a long list of great accomplishments. But, trying to make a list of accomplishments(I know she is doing that) is going to be scrutinized and beaten up. It is like Thibs time as a coach....he didn't win in the playoffs. He is never considered as a great coach like Pop or Phil.

All we can hope is she listens to smart people and grows as a leader and hires the right people. That is where having Bill Clinton might help if she wins.

You're right on most things you say here. No, most politicians aren't particularly more "accomplished" than her. The only ones that you can really grade well are the people who have been executives like Governors because you can better determine the parameters and results.

That said, Hilary's true, enthusiastic supporters (the relative few that there are - mostly women who, understandably, may be somewhat biased due to women being shut out of politics so much), tend to paint her as some super qualified, accomplished person. They'll often even paint time as first lady as some sort of accomplishment which is laughable (yeah she did such an awesome job of being someone's wife), and similar to Trump blaming Hilary for Bill's cheating. To me, it's a disgrace that "first lady" is even a term we use or worth of discussion. Smells like royal times. We won that war.

Agree mostly...first lady is mostly a ceremonial role like the Queen of England. She has the advantage of knowing where the meeting rooms, bathrooms, bedrooms are in the White House(unless remodeled). That's why her claiming 30 years of experience is stupid as is the blame she gets for being in power for 30 years.

As for the women thing...I think you have to look at both sides of her. Who knows how much she was kicked down because she was a woman when she was a senator/SOS for her opinions. And, how much she was allowed to be a leader/do things without having power. Even a normal man as a SOS/Senator can't do things. And, she had the disadvantage of being a woman.

And, if someone like her(who is high profile, been in big roles) is not looked as qualified....imagine Obama as a woman in 2008 or even Trump as a woman. Do they even get to be a nominee? I do think there is so much bias against woman(for presidency type roles) that you have to be someone like Hillary(pushed over a little bit, high profile, have big money donors etc..) to come out on top. A perfect no-controversy woman wouldn't have a chance, IMO.

[jnrjr79]

Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

It's actually far from clear how important Glass-Steagall being gutted contributed to the collapse. Here, from the obviously not right-wing spinning NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis

[The 6ft Hurdle]

Just notes:
- the middle east situation deteriorated significantly when she was SOS. Any ceasefire agreement she negotiated was a joke. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc...
- Iran? Seriously? They have extended their reach through the middle east over the past few years. Any dealings with Iran by the US have been abject failure lately.

When it comes to Middle East issues, I'm just wondering what else could she could have done?

Conflicts between Palestine and Israel were there before Hilary, and will probably continue.

Seems like we've always had an icy relationship with Iran before and after. But I thought getting Iran to agree to disarm was pretty big. Or yuge, as an agent of the orange might say.

Overall, she has an AWFUL list of accomplishments. The one time she was in charge of something (SOS) it went very poorly. Her time in the senate was non descript and she has no other leadership experience other than that.

Virtually every governor who has ever been nominated to run for president has a longer list of leadership accomplishments.

That's an interesting point worth exploring with Mitt Romney, Reagan, Bush, etc.

On the other hand, what experience working foreign relations did these governors have? And how has that fared?

[coldfish]

Just notes:
- the middle east situation deteriorated significantly when she was SOS. Any ceasefire agreement she negotiated was a joke. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc...
- Iran? Seriously? They have extended their reach through the middle east over the past few years. Any dealings with Iran by the US have been abject failure lately.

When it comes to Middle East issues, I'm just wondering what else could she could have done?

Conflicts between Palestine and Israel were there before Hilary, and will probably continue.

Seems like we've always had an icy relationship with Iran before and after. But I thought getting Iran to agree to disarm was pretty big. Or yuge, as an agent of the orange might say.

Overall, she has an AWFUL list of accomplishments. The one time she was in charge of something (SOS) it went very poorly. Her time in the senate was non descript and she has no other leadership experience other than that.

Virtually every governor who has ever been nominated to run for president has a longer list of leadership accomplishments.

That's an interesting point worth exploring with Mitt Romney, Reagan, Bush, etc.

On the other hand, what experience working foreign relations did these governors have? And how has that fared?

I have had more in depth discussions in other places that I won't rehash. A quick summary would be that there likely wasn't much she could do in places like Egypt but Libya was largely a diplomatic disaster. Everyone was just pointing fingers at each other after the bombing as to who was going to keep Libya from becoming a failed state.

Given that we made this mistake right after the Iraq mistake, its particularly glaring.

....

What foreign policy experience did governors have? Well, Sarah Palin could see Russia out her front door! Joking aside, historically governors (and generals too) have a better track record running for president than legislators because they can point to executive experience in a government role.

I think Benghazi is an overblown joke, for example. But it is actually one of the few times in Hillary's life where she really had to make the call on something. Its just not something that senators or first ladies have to do much.

[coldfish]

Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

It's actually far from clear how important Glass-Steagall being gutted contributed to the collapse. Here, from the obviously not right-wing spinning NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis

Just to note,

3) glass-steagall reversal, while quite possibly a bad thing, is not thought to have contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008

The line that I quoted (and you cut out) said that the reversal did not CONTRIBUTE to the financial melt down. I think you would have to be insane to believe that.

That's a far cry from the term CAUSE. There were many causes for the meltdown and you would likely have a retraction even if you remove one or more of them. The reversal of glass steagall contributed to the magnitude of the meltdown though. I don't see how that's debatable.

Regardless, from the article:

"I have often posed the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What bad practices would have been prevented if Glass-Steagall was still on the books?" wrote former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. "I've yet to hear a good answer."

It is my understanding that prior to the reversal, depositor banks gave out home loans and kept them for the most part or maybe sold them to Fannie Mae. After the reversal, investment banks got their hands on these loans and started bundling them as Collateral Debt Obligations, salting in bad loans with good ones. These CDO's became the backbone of the collapse as people thought they were much better quality investment devices than they were, attracting lots of investment, incentivizing more loan sales, making it a bubble, etc.

I'm not even getting into all the Credit Default Swaps being bandied about, which again, wouldn't have been sold by old school depositor banks.

I just have no idea how someone could arrive at the conclusion that the reversal of Glass Steagall contributed ZERO to this process. It sure sounds to me like a banker trying to spin things in a manner which will allow him to keep his pig face in the trough.

[League Circles]

The line that I quoted (and you cut out) said that the reversal did not CONTRIBUTE to the financial melt down. I think you would have to be insane to believe that.

That's a far cry from the term CAUSE. There were many causes for the meltdown and you would likely have a retraction even if you remove one or more of them. The reversal of glass steagall contributed to the magnitude of the meltdown though. I don't see how that's debatable.

No, no, when the world financial system crumbles there must be a singular cause, just as when a free agent chooses a team he must be guided by only one factor.

[jnrjr79]

Dice, I know from my dealings with you that you are a smart guy. Do you seriously believe this? This reads like political spin. Glass Steagall prevented depositor banks from investing. Citibank, BoA, etc. all were coming up with crazy investment products and moving them around. It put up a firewall preventing the very thing that almost took down the global economy. I don't know how someone could write that with a straight face.

It's actually far from clear how important Glass-Steagall being gutted contributed to the collapse. Here, from the obviously not right-wing spinning NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis

Just to note,

3) glass-steagall reversal, while quite possibly a bad thing, is not thought to have contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008

The line that I quoted (and you cut out) said that the reversal did not CONTRIBUTE to the financial melt down. I think you would have to be insane to believe that.

That's a far cry from the term CAUSE. There were many causes for the meltdown and you would likely have a retraction even if you remove one or more of them. The reversal of glass steagall contributed to the magnitude of the meltdown though. I don't see how that's debatable.

Regardless, from the article:

"I have often posed the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What bad practices would have been prevented if Glass-Steagall was still on the books?" wrote former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. "I've yet to hear a good answer."

It is my understanding that prior to the reversal, depositor banks gave out home loans and kept them for the most part or maybe sold them to Fannie Mae. After the reversal, investment banks got their hands on these loans and started bundling them as Collateral Debt Obligations, salting in bad loans with good ones. These CDO's became the backbone of the collapse as people thought they were much better quality investment devices than they were, attracting lots of investment, incentivizing more loan sales, making it a bubble, etc.

I'm not even getting into all the Credit Default Swaps being bandied about, which again, wouldn't have been sold by old school depositor banks.

I just have no idea how someone could arrive at the conclusion that the reversal of Glass Steagall contributed ZERO to this process. It sure sounds to me like a banker trying to spin things in a manner which will allow him to keep his pig face in the trough.

You described the repeal of Glass Steagall as "the very thing that almost took down the global economy." That sure to me sounds like you believe the repeal was the cause of the recession, or at least one significant causal factor, and not just a minor contributor. Your characterization appears overstated. I don't have any particular dog in the fight, as I think the repeal was a bad idea, but you definitely saw in the Sanders campaign, for instance, that many people portray the repeal of that law as a direct causal factor of the recession. It seems like if the repeal contributed at all, and if so, to what degree, is at least an open question, rather than how you portrayed it, which is that nobody could believe that it wasn't related "with a straight face." Many reasonable (non-"insane") people do seem to hold that belief.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a minor contributor to the financial crisis, if it contributed to the crisis at all. At the heart of the 2008 financial crisis was nearly $5 trillion worth of basically worthless mortgage loans. Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of these mortgages, an attempt to blame the financial crisis on a failure of banking regulation represents a logical disconnect from the facts of the situation.

The portion of the repealed Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 on which some economists try to pin the blame for the financial crisis is the part that prevented banks from operating as both commercial or retail banks and investment banks. The theory is that allowing banks to act in both the commercial and investment fields somehow was responsible for the creation of all the mortgage-backed derivatives that were eventually shown to be worth less than the paper on which they were written. This theory cannot be supported by the facts, however. The buyers of over half of the subprime mortgages in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – either commercial, investment or both – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Many of the mortgage-backed derivatives were created and sold by banks, but there is virtually no connection between that fact and the Glass-Steagall Act. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, along with Goldman Sachs, were all major players in the subprime mortgage meltdown, but none of these investment banks had ever taken advantage of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and ventured into commercial banking. They were strictly investment banks, just as they had been before Glass-Steagall was repealed.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050515/did-repeal-glasssteagall-act-contribute-2008-financial-crisis.asp

It’s safe to say, though, that there is not a prominent group of economists who argue "but for the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, the crisis would not have happened."

Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, doesn’t see Glass-Steagall playing any role in the financial crisis whatsoever. He pointed to the crisis’ biggest culprits: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. He added that much of the crisis hinged on activity by these institutions that would have been possible with or without Glass-Steagall, such as mass investment in notoriously bad mortgage loans. (Clinton’s staff linked us to commentary by several other experts who share White’s view.)

We also contacted Barry Ritholtz, a wealth management expert and commentator, who said Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the financial crisis, but not having it made the crisis worse. It encouraged banks to get bigger and to take on riskier investments, so the ripple effects of the crisis were bigger than they would have been otherwise, he said, adding that it wasn’t just the headline-making banks that struggled.

The extent over Glass-Steagall’s effect on the financial crisis is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

I have been unable to find any evidence that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall — was a primary cause of the financial crisis. Imagine a “but for” scenario where Glass-Steagall had not been overturned but the rest of the deregulatory actions had still taken place. Would the crisis have occurred? Without a doubt, yes.

The Fed still would have taken rates down to unprecedented low levels. This would have led to a global spiral in asset prices. The nonbank, lend-to-sell-to-securitizer mortgage originators were still going to make subprime-mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers would still have overwhelmingly increased exposure to subprime mortgages. AIG would still have written trillions of dollars in credit-default swaps and other derivatives with zero reserves set against them. The largest security firms and deposit banks would still have charged headlong into the subprime securitization business. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would still have belatedly chased these banks into the same subprime market, just at the peak of the housing boom.

Lastly, housing prices would still have run up to absurd levels and then collapsed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html

(That article, though, goes on to say that the repeal was a part of a broader trend of deregulation and that, though it was not a cause, it made the resulting damage broader than it otherwise would have been. GS may have stopped the concept of "too big to fail," and tanking financial entities could have been allowed to fail rather than being bailed out.)

[ThreeMileAllan]

Reading through this thread and I am kind of amazed at how dismissive many are of Hillary's accomplishments as first lady, senator and secretary. She has done a LOT. Whether or not you agree or care about any legislation she introduced, passed, or any international agreements she got to the table, or how much she has, not just championed, but really truly made a difference in women's rights overseas as far as education, working rights, healthcare, lgbt rights advamcements in non-gay friendly countries, on and on and on.

Of course, I can't thank her enough for getting the FDA to look and approve Plan B for women. She has saved my ass a couple times on that, so thank you Hillary or I'd be a dad.

I'm kind of burnt out because I spend most of my political discussion capital on Reddit.

But one thing I have learned is that many of the "scandals" that appear are often originated from the right way to knock down Hilary's immense popularity in 2012 and have Obama lose the election. But as always they were founded on nothing. 30 years the right has targetednher and tried to nail her to the wall, 30 years, multiple investigations, 80+ million, the best investigative bureau the country has... And nothing. All of that and nothing.

I have a lot of respect for her to be able to put up with that kind of scrutiny and come out on top. Her campaign has been impeccable. Steering the pied Piper candidates into winning the nomination. She runs a tight campaign and if she runs the country anything like she does her campaign I know we will have an effective president because she's an effective as hell politician. She bounces back from political roadblocks, reassesses and finds the seam where she can push the incremental change. She's a damn master at that. Knowing she has no illusions about cooperation, I know she will hit the ground running.

[Ben]

Reading through this thread and I am kind of amazed at how dismissive many are of Hillary's accomplishments as first lady, senator and secretary. She has done a LOT. Whether or not you agree or care about any legislation she introduced, passed, or any international agreements she got to the table, or how much she has, not just championed, but really truly made a difference in women's rights overseas as far as education, working rights, healthcare, lgbt rights advamcements in non-gay friendly countries, on and on and on.

Of course, I can't thank her enough for getting the FDA to look and approve Plan B for women. She has saved my ass a couple times on that, so thank you Hillary or I'd be a dad.

I'm kind of burnt out because I spend most of my political discussion capital on Reddit.

But one thing I have learned is that many of the "scandals" that appear are often originated from the right way to knock down Hilary's immense popularity in 2012 and have Obama lose the election. But as always they were founded on nothing. 30 years the right has targetednher and tried to nail her to the wall, 30 years, multiple investigations, 80+ million, the best investigative bureau the country has... And nothing. All of that and nothing.

I have a lot of respect for her to be able to put up with that kind of scrutiny and come out on top. Her campaign has been impeccable. Steering the pied Piper candidates into winning the nomination. She runs a tight campaign and if she runs the country anything like she does her campaign I know we will have an effective president because she's an effective as hell politician. She bounces back from political roadblocks, reassesses and finds the seam where she can push the incremental change. She's a damn master at that. Knowing she has no illusions about cooperation, I know she will hit the ground running.

I agree with this in tone 100% and in substance maybe 75%, which is to say most of the way. I'll just add that I have no special illusions about Hillary being a nice person let alone an angel; Primary Colors painted both her and Bill in pretty unflattering light, and that was about a time way before the peak of their power. I just don't care all that much, because I also don't see her as malevolent or as someone who wants to oppress the populace (or her opponents). If you want an angel, you won't get an effective politician. You just don't want malevolence, and Trump very clearly has that in spades. Even many of his supporters admit as much. Take this educated idiot. But they dismiss malevolence in the same way that I dismiss non-purity, as if those were equivalent, and history suggests that they're tragically misled.

Hillary is a policy wonk. It's hard for me to fathom how people get so hot and bothered about a policy wonk. She's not a fascist, she's not a demagogue (because she lacks the charisma), and she's CERTAINLY not the devil (as Trump incredibly alleged) or a witch (as Matt Drudge, the former provocateur and current, shameless Trump shill, trumpets in headlines). She's a policy wonk. Very smart-- that's undeniable-- very knowledge, and very prepared. No one is going to get the best results all the time, but wouldn't you (not you, Funkman7) rather have a smart, knowledgeable, prepared, non-malevolent policy wonk at the helm than a crude, crass, lying, racist, misogynistic, bullying demagogue who threatens his opponents with imprisonment? Seriously?

[coldfish]

You described the repeal of Glass Steagall as "the very thing that almost took down the global economy." That sure to me sounds like you believe the repeal was the cause of the recession, or at least one significant causal factor, and not just a minor contributor. Your characterization appears overstated. I don't have any particular dog in the fight, as I think the repeal was a bad idea, but you definitely saw in the Sanders campaign, for instance, that many people portray the repeal of that law as a direct causal factor of the recession. It seems like if the repeal contributed at all, and if so, to what degree, is at least an open question, rather than how you portrayed it, which is that nobody could believe that it wasn't related "with a straight face." Many reasonable (non-"insane") people do seem to hold that belief.

Fair enough. Poorly stated hyperbole on my part.

IMO, there were multiple contributing factors and even without the repeal there was going to be a recession. I disagree with the articles you quoted though. Not worth pursuing here though as we are deep into a tangent.

[bentheredengthat]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

You can get that from Cuban when he runs, for now lets take the candidate that can form coherent sentences.

Man I can't see that happening, but would love to. He'd take it very seriously.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

Reading through this thread and I am kind of amazed at how dismissive many are of Hillary's accomplishments as first lady, senator and secretary. She has done a LOT. Whether or not you agree or care about any legislation she introduced, passed, or any international agreements she got to the table, or how much she has, not just championed, but really truly made a difference in women's rights overseas as far as education, working rights, healthcare, lgbt rights advamcements in non-gay friendly countries, on and on and on.

Of course, I can't thank her enough for getting the FDA to look and approve Plan B for women. She has saved my ass a couple times on that, so thank you Hillary or I'd be a dad.

I'm kind of burnt out because I spend most of my political discussion capital on Reddit.

But one thing I have learned is that many of the "scandals" that appear are often originated from the right way to knock down Hilary's immense popularity in 2012 and have Obama lose the election. But as always they were founded on nothing. 30 years the right has targetednher and tried to nail her to the wall, 30 years, multiple investigations, 80+ million, the best investigative bureau the country has... And nothing. All of that and nothing.

I have a lot of respect for her to be able to put up with that kind of scrutiny and come out on top. Her campaign has been impeccable. Steering the pied Piper candidates into winning the nomination. She runs a tight campaign and if she runs the country anything like she does her campaign I know we will have an effective president because she's an effective as hell politician. She bounces back from political roadblocks, reassesses and finds the seam where she can push the incremental change. She's a damn master at that. Knowing she has no illusions about cooperation, I know she will hit the ground running.

I agree with this in tone 100% and in substance maybe 75%, which is to say most of the way. I'll just add that I have no special illusions about Hillary being a nice person let alone an angel; Primary Colors painted both her and Bill in pretty unflattering light, and that was about a time way before the peak of their power. I just don't care all that much, because I also don't see her as malevolent or as someone who wants to oppress the populace (or her opponents). If you want an angel, you won't get an effective politician. You just don't want malevolence, and Trump very clearly has that in spades. Even many of his supporters admit as much. Take this educated idiot. But they dismiss malevolence in the same way that I dismiss non-purity, as if those were equivalent, and history suggests that they're tragically misled.

Hillary is a policy wonk. It's hard for me to fathom how people get so hot and bothered about a policy wonk. She's not a fascist, she's not a demagogue (because she lacks the charisma), and she's CERTAINLY not the devil (as Trump incredibly alleged) or a witch (as Matt Drudge, the former provocateur and current, shameless Trump shill, trumpets in headlines). She's a policy wonk. Very smart-- that's undeniable-- very knowledge, and very prepared. No one is going to get the best results all the time, but wouldn't you (not you, Funkman7) rather have a smart, knowledgeable, prepared, non-malevolent policy wonk at the helm than a crude, crass, lying, racist, misogynistic, bullying demagogue who threatens his opponents with imprisonment? Seriously?

I am curious about the undecideds and what will ultimately sway their vote. I definitely am interested in knowing what a guy like Ken Bone (viral red sweater 'Guess Who' guy from 2nd Debate) thinks!

Reading that 'educated idiot' article you provided gives you an answer to your last question at least for those that are definite Trumpsters. Most who are going to stick with him don't care at all about who he actually is or what he does, but what he 'ideationally' represents: their perceived notion of the 'American way of life.'

[Mech Engineer]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

You can get that from Cuban when he runs, for now lets take the candidate that can form coherent sentences.

Man I can't see that happening, but would love to. He'd take it very seriously.

I wish guys like Cuban get some high profile jobs in the administration to get a taste of how the government works. You need people who understand/are comfortable with the new economy/world and the younger generation. It is easier to talk about policies for older people because they have hard-formed needs but the younger generation needs to be understood and also setup for the future. That is not easily understood by 68-70 year olds, IMO.

[G I N T]

Trump slaughtered Clinton in the second debate. This is pretty clear to anyone who isn't a single-issue voter (women, minorities, etc).

Sad state of affairs in America when the outcome of a presidential election will be determined off of a leaked video on some random comments a guy made in private, off the record, about what he does in his personal life over a full decade ago.

This is supposedly somehow worse than a lying, corrupt scumbag like Clinton getting away with corruption/crime/fraud to an extent that we have never seen in the history of politics.

Clinton will make a terrible president. Even worse than Obama. Gonna suck these next 4 years.

[League Circles]

Trump slaughtered Clinton in the second debate. This is pretty clear to anyone who isn't a single-issue voter (women, minorities, etc).

Sad state of affairs in America when the outcome of a presidential election will be determined off of a leaked video on some random comments a guy made in private, off the record, about what he does in his personal life over a full decade ago.

This is supposedly somehow worse than a lying, corrupt scumbag like Clinton getting away with corruption/crime/fraud to an extent that we have never seen in the history of politics.

Clinton will make a terrible president. Even worse than Obama. Gonna suck these next 4 years.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but the leaked video isn't what's going to decide the election. The biggest factor is Trump coming across as an angry, arrogant ****.

It's really that simple. Most voters including me don't like Clinton one bit.

But Trump is somehow, amazingly even more unlikable. And his history is just as questionable as hers really when you consider things like not releasing the tax returns, the bankruptcies, all the wives and cheating, etc.

You act like Trump is some kind of obvious choice. He's not. They both suck and would make bad presidents. Hilary is just more predictable and stable, less likely to be a risk in international affairs.

[League Circles]

Trump slaughtered Clinton in the second debate. This is pretty clear to anyone who isn't a single-issue voter (women, minorities, etc).

Also, what is "women" issue? Or "minorities" issue? If someone considers both of those "issues", whatever they may be, wouldn't that make them a multiple issue voter? Or are you saying that only white men consider multiple issues?

I hate both candidates so for the first time ever and hopefully the last, I'm going single issue, which is that I'm voting Clinton simply because I don't trust Trump to not deport my permanent legal resident wife....because he comes across as big enough of an **** to do that, feel justified in it, do it illegally by executive order, and he says somewhat wild things.

Hilary can't be trusted to tell the truth, but Trump can't be trusted to do sane, decent things.

[G I N T]

Trump slaughtered Clinton in the second debate. This is pretty clear to anyone who isn't a single-issue voter (women, minorities, etc).

Sad state of affairs in America when the outcome of a presidential election will be determined off of a leaked video on some random comments a guy made in private, off the record, about what he does in his personal life over a full decade ago.

This is supposedly somehow worse than a lying, corrupt scumbag like Clinton getting away with corruption/crime/fraud to an extent that we have never seen in the history of politics.

Clinton will make a terrible president. Even worse than Obama. Gonna suck these next 4 years.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but the leaked video isn't what's going to decide the election. The biggest factor is Trump coming across as an angry, arrogant ****.

It's really that simple. Most voters including me don't like Clinton one bit.

But Trump is somehow, amazingly even more unlikable. And his history is just as questionable as hers really when you consider things like not releasing the tax returns, the bankruptcies, all the wives and cheating, etc.

You act like Trump is some kind of obvious choice. He's not. They both suck and would make bad presidents. Hilary is just more predictable and stable, less likely to be a risk in international affairs.

The leaked video did decide the election. That and the comments about some irrelevant Hispanic woman/former beauty pageant contestant from over 20 years ago. Take a look at the polling numbers before and after that happened. It shows where the voters' priorities are, and it's really sad that irrelevant nobodies like Alicia Machado and a behind-the-scenes private conversation about nothing to do with actual policies, decision-making, leadership, etc (you know, the stuff that actually does matter when electing a president) are determining a presidential election.

I have no problem with Clinton winning, even though I think she's garbage as a candidate. But to win off of silliness like "He's racist!" (that fat Machado woman) and "He's sexist!" (the leaked video) is where my problem is. Come on. There are much bigger issues facing the world/this country, and the election is essentially being decided off of things that could not matter less.