This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 26 May 23 10.48am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
After 2008 Congress imposed laws on bank solvency with annual stress tests. If this is true it is nothing less than a disgrace and the politicians should take the blame. The one to look at is Deutsche Bank. Keeps on nearly failing, is nearly failing again right now. God knows how much EU and German money has propped it up. When I say God, I mean von der Leyen and Merkel. Germany's second largest bank and one of Europe's biggest. I presume the problem stems from lending again - mortgages again are my guess. Couple that with poor foreign investments in the Eastern Bloc, Africa and Asia and there you go. Think about how much mortgage defaulting must be happening right now.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Badger11  Beckenham 26 May 23 11.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
The one to look at is Deutsche Bank. Keeps on nearly failing, is nearly failing again right now. God knows how much EU and German money has propped it up. When I say God, I mean von der Leyen and Merkel. Germany's second largest bank and one of Europe's biggest. I presume the problem stems from lending again - mortgages again are my guess. Couple that with poor foreign investments in the Eastern Bloc, Africa and Asia and there you go. Think about how much mortgage defaulting must be happening right now. After the 2008 crash the UK banks wrote off their debt and took the hit which meant that some like RBS went bust whilst others needed a major government bailout. Anyway they took the pain. Meanwhile in Europe the Italian banks and possibly Deutche bank and some others were how can I say this much more circumspect at identifying bad loans. It maybe a case of chickens coming home to roost at last.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 May 23 9.21pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
After the 2008 crash the UK banks wrote off their debt and took the hit which meant that some like RBS went bust whilst others needed a major government bailout. Anyway they took the pain. Meanwhile in Europe the Italian banks and possibly Deutche bank and some others were how can I say this much more circumspect at identifying bad loans. It maybe a case of chickens coming home to roost at last. They didn't have the benefit of the Clinton presidency and those banking reforms where he forced them to loan to....how shall we say, people with lower credit. All of that gets rather conveniently missed out.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 May 23 9.21pm |
|
|---|---|
[Tweet Link]
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 May 23 10.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As I've said I prefer DeSantis, but I disagree with your idea that partys' leaders shouldn't be representing their supporters. If Trump wins 2024, he's coming for your corrupt degenerates and you're just going to have to watch. We'll have peace and nuclear death off the table. Anyway, Emerson Poll came out. It has Trump at 62%, DeSantis at 16, Mike Pence at 7. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2023 12.07am) I didn't say that. What I said is that they have a duty to ensure that whoever is their candidate has integrity. No President just represents their supporters. They represent their country and if they lack integrity, as Trump so clearly does, that's a disaster for the country. So having some kind of entry qualification makes sense to me otherwise you end up with a slick-talking con man as President. Once was more than enough. That Trump is popular with a particular group is not a qualification for high office.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 23 2.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I didn't say that. What I said is that they have a duty to ensure that whoever is their candidate has integrity. No President just represents their supporters. They represent their country and if they lack integrity, as Trump so clearly does, that's a disaster for the country. So having some kind of entry qualification makes sense to me otherwise you end up with a slick-talking con man as President. Once was more than enough. That Trump is popular with a particular group is not a qualification for high office. You have a con man now. Sure integrity matters, however politics is reactionary and who emerges depends upon that and how much funding they can get.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 27 May 23 5.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I didn't say that. What I said is that they have a duty to ensure that whoever is their candidate has integrity. No President just represents their supporters. They represent their country and if they lack integrity, as Trump so clearly does, that's a disaster for the country. So having some kind of entry qualification makes sense to me otherwise you end up with a slick-talking con man as President. Once was more than enough. That Trump is popular with a particular group is not a qualification for high office. How many % of the population need to be happy with the government of the day and their policies being enacted to fit your statement then?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 23 8.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You have a con man now. Sure integrity matters, however politics is reactionary and who emerges depends upon that and how much funding they can get. Whilst politics tends to encourage a degree of being economical with the truth from all who participate, Biden is well down the scale, whilst Trump is off the top of it. The fact that funding can effectively buy votes is a huge weakness. One that has ruined US politics and impacts ours to a lesser degree. Designing a meritorious system would produce much better outcomes but I cannot see how it could be achieved.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 23 8.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
How many % of the population need to be happy with the government of the day and their policies being enacted to fit your statement then? Just as many as are required in their system! I am talking about a party ensuring that the candidates they put forward have integrity. That would apply to every party. How it would be administered is an open question, whether voluntary with only reputational damage if a failure to expose known faults is subsequently revealed, or whether legal sanctions could be found. There would be nothing to stop anyone from standing for office. Only that if a party backs them, then they take responsibility for them. If such a system existed then the GOP, who didn't want Trump but had him imposed on them by their selection system, could have debarred him from the start.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 23 9.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Whilst politics tends to encourage a degree of being economical with the truth from all who participate, Biden is well down the scale, whilst Trump is off the top of it. The fact that funding can effectively buy votes is a huge weakness. One that has ruined US politics and impacts ours to a lesser degree. Designing a meritorious system would produce much better outcomes but I cannot see how it could be achieved. Nonsense, Biden does nothing but lie and has done since he got into politics. Seemingly everything he makes a decision on turns to manure. Your portrayal of him isn't anything to do with reality.. He's a corrupt degenerate and practically a zombie doll fronting a backroom of far left progressives who are destroying America both socially and economically.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 23 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Just seen the Epstein client list and if it's accurate you can certainly understand why it's not been released. There are a lot of very rich people on it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 May 23 9.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Nonsense, Biden does nothing but lie and has done since he got into politics. Everything he touches or makes a decision on turns to manure. Your portrayal of him isn't anything to do with reality.. He's a corrupt degenerate and practically a zombie doll fronting a backroom of far left progressives who are destroying America both socially and economically. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2023 9.17am) You must live in the same alternative reality to that which many of the Trump supporters do. I suppose that's unsurprising as you seem to rely on the same "news" sources for your "alternative facts" and not the edited and researched information presented by the MSM who you regard as part of the problem. The idea that Biden fronts a "backroom of far left progressives" made me smile. I don't detect a whiff of anything "far-left" emerging from the Biden administration. Common sense and pragmatism seem more accurate. Don't see much public ownership or seizure of private assets.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.