caulfield12

Contending that a US president has wide powers to control who comes into the United States, Trump read from US law and declared that even a "bad high school student" would rule in his favor. "This isn't just me. This is for Obama, for Ronald Reagan, for the President. This was done, very importantly, for security," Trump said. "It was done for the security of our nation, for the security of our citizens, so people don't come in who are going to do us harm. That is why is was done. It couldn't have been written more precisely." http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/don...x.html?adkey=bn Parent of backpacker on list of 78 terror attacks strikes back at Trump admin...argues daughter's murderer wasn't Islamic militant http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/europe/trump...debar_expansion

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 07:50 AM) That's be the democratic party. Exhibit A, Chicago. Exhibit B, Cook. What has the GOP done for poor whites and blacks in the Deep South since the 1970's?

Trump really must want to lose the immigration ban appeal... "I will be speaking at 9:00 A.M. today to Police Chiefs and Sheriffs and will be discussing the horrible, dangerous and wrong decision.... If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!"

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 08:05 PM) Nah, just growing tired of the minute by minute overreaction circle jerk on this board. Get used to it. There are a lot of liberals/Democrats that are paying attention to ALL (real and fake) news now. Before the election, roughly 85% favored Trump or was anti-Clinton (17 of top 20 stories the last months of the election). That might be down to 60-65% Trump-favoring and the rest from the left. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/arch...content/515532/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/eli...trnd/index.html On the other hand, it remains to be seem whether making Liz Warren even more of a hero to the left will backfire.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 08:14 PM) I am curious which part of the Federal Reserve bank charter deals with Anti-Trust issues? I'm assuming the FTC or SEC. The horror story could have easily been prevented had there been intelligent life at the Federal Reserve Board in the years when the housing bubble was growing to ever more dangerous proportions (2002-2006). But the Fed did nothing to curb the bubble. Arguably, it even acted to foster its growth with Greenspan cheering the development of exotic mortgages and completely ignoring its regulatory responsibilities. Most people who had this incredible infamy attached to their name would have the decency to find a large rock to hide behind; but not Alan Greenspan. He apparently believes that he has not punished us enough. Greenspan has a new book which he is now hawking on radio and television shows everywhere. The book, which I have not read, is ostensibly Greenspan's wisdom about the economy and economics. But he also tells us that his problem as Fed chair was that he just didn't know about the flood of junk mortgages that was fueling the unprecedented rise in house prices during the bubble years. He has used this ignorance to explain his lack of action – or even concern – about the risks posed by the bubble. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...g-market-crisis Once again, how is someone so cozy with the financial press (such as his wife Andrea Mitchell and Maria Bartiromo) and the investment banks expected to objectively or fairly regulate them?

”Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person…to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world,” the Manhattan suit says. “These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance,” according to the $150 million filing. Poor Melania! http://nypost.com/2017/02/06/melania-trump...-was-an-escort/ http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-lo...-152441708.html Dems better rethink how to sell immigration plans in future

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 05:36 PM) I don't think you understand the role of the fed at all. They are the banking system's regulatory body. The federal reserve bank isn't a PR firm. They are responsible for the safety and stability of the entire banking system. The fact that all of these financial products have relationships to the overall system alone is reason enough for them all to be done under one roof. While there has been a role of a cheerleader at times of trouble, that isn't the systems primary role at all. Not even close. The fun part is bolded is exactly the rule that Congress enacted for grading of securities. They were pissed off at the ratings agencies, so they rewrote the rules to remove all mentions of the ratings and that system. Guess who is deciding credit worthiness of bonds now? There's theory and then there's reality (like running low inflation for a decade with interest rates at zero.) Greenspan stopped regulating when things were going great and then it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Unless you call his "irrational exuberance" comments a brake on the gas pedal. Other than the KC Reserve Bank, what governors were even skeptical a decade ago? There's been more consolidation and too big to fail is just as true today as a decade ago. Probably moreso.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 05:02 PM) That is the exact opposite of what I just posted. The rest of it is just partisan posing. You still haven't explained how you change that position from cheerleader/soothsayer for the economy to regulator. Seems to be a conflict. Like essentially allowing investment banks to grade their own securities since ratings agencies can no longer be trusted to be independent.

The "passing" reading proficiency scores for white students in Detroit after her nearly thirty years of fighting for reforms in the public schools...13%

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:32 PM) Financial regulation in this country is a flat out disaster. You have dozens of different agencies, each with a piece of responsibilities of the overall pie. None of these organizations work together to share relevant information. Many of these rules have overlapping regulatory bodies, of which often don't disagree on the actual interpretation of the rules, and each tells the same firm to do something different with the same item. Each of these agencies got their start out of a different federal agency, most of which don't even fall under the scope of the financial sector anyway (as in neither the SEC or the Federal Reserve bank as their heads) This is just another step down that road of discombobulated financial regulations in a attempt to do some good, but without a true understanding of what actually would do some good here. Do you really want to fix regulatory issues? Burn it all to the ground and start over again. Place all financial regulatory authority into the Federal Reserve bank. Give them the authority to investigate and connect all financial products, and not just the banking system. You could even do this with the SEC at the lead, but to me it doesn't sense to do it without the institution responsible for monetary policy being the head of it. Then you have one agency with the ability to oversee all financial products, instead of just one thing at a time. You shouldn't have one body for stocks, one body for options, one body for bonds, one body for mortgage securities, one body for options, etc. Get it all under the same roof. Then you can start to fix what is systemic with the overall system, instead of just trying to stab at individual problems. How well would that have worked under Greenspan...there would have been zero oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry. You'd have the opposite problem, too much power concentrated in the hands of a few in Washington. Don't Republicans want to break up that power and let it devolve to the states? How would you keep it apolitical...since Reserve Board commissioners are appointed by Dems and Republicans alike? When was the last "bipartisan committee" to actually get something constructive done in Washington? Simpson/Bowles on budgeting?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:16 PM) I'm still confused why it's okay and good to deny a President the powers of their office for at least 25% of their elected term regardless of what Joe Biden thought about it in 1992. Because of that other Kentucky case, the Brett Precedent. It has been on the alt-right/anti-government forums as long as the conspiracy theory mockumentary "Collapse."

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) Again, i'm not arguing she was a stellar choice. I just don't see the doomsday scenario. I'll ask Al Franken's question. Other than shooting someone (white AND top 1%) on 5th Avenue in broad daylight, what would she have to do in order NOT to pass through to the Cabinet? It used to be having undocumented domestic workers or unpaid back taxes, undeclared money hidden (Mnunchin) would automatically kill your nomination. Nothing does anymore. The only way is the heat gets too much and those candidates quit on their own before the confirmation process.

DeVos gets in, might as well cancel the rest of the hearings as they're pointless. Next Sessions will get in, so the only one able to stop Trump will be the courts. But probably still get 30 hours for him, Price and Mnuchin. Trump promising to fight refugee ban to Supreme Court. Sigh.

Shouldn't they be arresting him? Is there a black market for that type of item...where the buyer never can even publicly acknowledge or display it? Goodell, lol?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 08:55 AM) Whether or not someone should even use a financial advisor is a philisophical question, not one for law. And while it certainly seems like a good idea to make sure advisors are acting in their clients' best interests, bear in mind that A) there are already rules to provide for that, and B) the new rule was not practically workable and would result in increased fees to the very customers they are looking to protect. Again, well-intentioned, poorly executed. How would the fees be higher compared with current practices such as churning accounts for trade commissions and convincing unsuspecting clients that paying upfront loads for mutual funds will consstently lead to a higher ROI compared to index-tracking no load funds? Essentially the model of The Mutual Fund Store, where they only make money if you make money...whatever split they charge, something like 1.5% of nav at the end of year. Most typical middle class investors don't need hedge funds...or to get involved in puts, calls, warrants, etc.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 06:33 AM) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politic...m=.fcf0d540d539 Lugenpresse http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commenta...-honest-mistake You know things are bad when Texas newspapers are going after Spicer and Conway. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2...=BGMenu_Article Full list of 78 supposedly underreported attacks

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 10:47 PM) Without commenting on FA salaries I often think the 162 game schedule is long overdue for a change but not sure if extended playoffs is needed . Pitchers already have too many injuries and extended playoffs would mean more short starting rotations when the 4th starter isn't usually used ( dependent on the type of series( 1/3/5/7 games). Obviously the farther you go in the playoffs means the best pitchers in the game will go through the most stressful innings . Not sure risking the health of the biggest pitching names in baseball is a very prudent idea. 1 game series seems so un baseball like when the season is based on having a great teams and a 1 game playoffs might hinge on who has the best 1 or 2 starting pitchers. Playoffs then become not who has the best team but who has the the best 2 starters and the best 2 bullpen pieces. The long season is a test of the depth of talent and short playoff series just contradict that. But I am sure if the season ever gets shortened playoffs probably would be expanded .Playoffs games generate much more revenue for most teams so why not just make it more like hockey and decrease the regular season to 100 games and have all playoff series be 7 games except the 1st round with top teams getting byes. Now that idea is too radical and would screw with the record books but makes more sense and would give teams a lot more incentive to be competitive . It might make sense to limit April and September games, but those last thirty give teams an additional opportunity to look at their 40 man roster. With content providers like cable/satellite, they want as many live games as possible to justify those packages...which of course flows from the original broadcast rights deal. 154 is more realistic, because of historical precedent. Of course, you also have add ons like WBC and games in Japan, Australia, Mexico, etc.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017...hoo&ref=yfp Reddit finally kicks off several alt-right sites/discussion boards from their forums...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-democ...-221940499.html First UC Berkeley, now he's threatening to defund the entire state of California. God knows what will happen to the Iowa AG (Trump won state by about 10%) who is joining the legal battle against him.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/epic-patriots...-155559094.html Will tennis pro Eugenie Bouchard, after losing a Twitter bet about Patriots coming back...go out with random Twitter guy sporting a Tiger Woods avatar? http://sports.yahoo.com/news/statement-mad...-004233155.html Goodell "clowned" by Pats' assistant coach. Good stuff.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 03:55 PM) While I am clearly upset by how awful Trump is, I have to say (this seemed like the best place) that I've seen a lot of overreaction to some things coming out of the executive. I think people are so angry that they just see red. Some examples: --The financial advisor rule removal. This was a matter of pure practicality. It was well-intentioned legislation when it came out, but it was also wholly unworkable, and did not thing material to help people. Getting rid of it is not OMG THEY ARE GIVING THE BANKS ALL THE POWER AGAIN. --The rule about guns that people are looking at as if the GOP wants to give guns to the mentally unstable, is really not accurate, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. --The rule change to allow payments of more than 5k to the FSB was super-narrow and just allowed a specified set of companies to very specific business, to allow border controls to continue to function in both countries. This was not some sort of handover of control to the Russians, as people seem to think. --While there are some confimation-level nominees that are clearly and entirely not proper for their jobs (DeVos is not in the same state as qualified, Tillerson has massive conflicts of interest, the new EPA guy wants to end it), most of them are not outright jokes. And this is a CONFIRMATION process, not a popularity contest. Trump won, and he gets wide latitude to fill his cabinet, unless they are just ridiculously unqualified. Most of the nominees pass muster, so let's not scream and yell about Dems not planting a flag. Again, I think Trump has shown he's (so far at least) a disaster of a President. But that does not mean every single thing he and the White House have done are pure evil. Have the financial advisors reformed since then in largely a positive way, that encourages more competition and less portfolio churning (going to a fee for % of asset increases on a yearly basis, for example, so the interests are aligned mutually)? Many companies are keeping the changes they've made even with the rule removal. Finally, we know that almost no active manager can beat the market, that load funds generally have a hard time making back their upfront losses, that having index funds that represent bonds and stocks weighted according to your age, a mixture of international/emerging markets, value/growth, small/med/large cap, no more than 10% in any one company...all are logical boilerplate, yet how many active advisors follow this strategy if it earns them 25-50% less money in commissions? For the majority of investors under $500,000, they only need 3-4 Vanguard Index funds to capture a market return and mitigate their risk. Even if you're skeptical it was costing investors $17 billion per year (Obama admin numbers), the idea that going back to the old system will benefit the majority of small and even medium wealth investors is hard to fathom.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/9th...-ban/index.html Now CNN podcasts (embedded in the story) are providing warnings that some may consider "the Daily DC" to be fake news. Surreal. So, by definition, Fox and Breitbart should have "real news" stamps on their stories??? And still trying to imagine the firestorm had Obama made those same comments about Russia and the US each having "lots of killers." It would be the American flag lapel fake patriotism story all over again.

James Jay Carafano, a Heritage Foundation analyst who worked on Trump's transition team believes that seeking deep foreign policy truths in the President's tweets and comments is a mistake. "That public persona is not strategic signaling. That is just Trump being Trump. Pretty soon, people are going to look for other things when they look at what is true strategic signaling," Carafano said. "Trump means exactly what he says, you just have to figure out exactly what he means," Carafano said. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/tru...ging/index.html

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) One of Milo's cult fans shot someone at one of these protests. Shooter sent Facebook message to Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos before gunfire at UW protest, police say Not as vicious as those Berkley "thugs" setting a garbage can on fire or breaking a window.... Berkeley thugs hired by Bannon to sabotage peaceful image of Women's March and turn independent voters against Dems/Millennials/Starbucks...alternate facts?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:00 AM) It is astonishing. They consistently snapped the ball really early in the play clock when all they needed to do is run out the clock and this is when the Patriots were taking their sweet ass time on all their plays and shouldn't have had enough time to even make a comeback. Then when you recover the onside kick up 28-9 you have a good 9 yard run on first down to get in FG range. On 2nd and one Matthews inexcusably holds on a running play backing them up and out of FG range and then on third and long Ryan gets sacked and they have to punt. But no matter, they hold the Patriots to a FG on the Patriots next drive and the Patriots chew up 5 minutes of clock to get only 3 points so now you are still up 16 pts with less than 10 minutes left when you get the ball back. They get to third and one and the next play completely changes the game. If they run it there and get stopped New England has less than 8 minutes to have two TD drives where they need to go the length of the field when at this point they had showed zero big play ability the entire game. And then rather than running the Falcons questionably throw but that is made even worse by the fact that Freeman somehow doesn't see Hightower blitzing from his side and fails to pick it up leading to Ryan fumbling. I honestly have no f***ing clue what Freeman was looking at. Then after the Patriots score and get the 2 point conversion, the Falcons have a good drive and are well within FG range for an awesome kicker. If you run it three times and kick an easy FG the Patriots probably burn 2 timeouts, have less than 4 minutes to go to score 10 points while they can only stop the clock twice. So after getting stopped a run Ryan loses 12 yards on a sack (even if you are going to throw why the f*** are you calling a play where he is dropping back so far). And then on third they throw it and actually have a nice gain to set up a pretty easy FG attempt for Bryant (would have been just over 40 yards) and Matthews again with a terrible hold negating the play and you end up punting. Then of course the Falcons should have intercepted the throw on Edelman's insane catch and they compounded their error by challenging it and losing a timeout (which could have come in handy when they got the ball back at the end of regulation). And then with a minute left which is plenty of time to get in FG range (especially for Matt Bryant) Eric Weems inexplicably doesn't take a knee in the end zone so instead of starting from the 25 you are pushed back to the 11. Just astonishing how bad they were and how many things they did wrong. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/thirty-one-th...-055153512.html Thirty one thoughts from a Falcons' fan