[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-October-22, 19:45, said:

"my time is valuable". I assume everyone's is. So we post or we don't post.
The first charge on your list:
"setting up mortgages so that if one misses one payment, he loses his house much to the Clintons' benefit,"
I have no idea what you are talking about. Depending on what comes next, I might give this some thought or I might not. As it stands, I don't know what Clinton, either one of them, has to do with mortgages. Setting up a mortgage so that one missed payment results in foreclosure sounds pretty tough, I never would have agreed to such a mortgage, I didn't know anything about this charge. I don't know which Clinton benefited when or how.

As usual, there is much missing in the right wing report of these Whitewater financing land deals. This from the Washington Post. (emphasis added)

Quote

Like others who bought lots in the remote Ozarks development, Soapes, who died in 1990 at age 59, had acquired his property under a "purchase agreement" in which the buyer received no deed and had few rights until the final monthly payment was made. The sellers, in this case the Whitewater Development Corp. jointly owned by the Clintons and James and Susan McDougal, retained broad powers to repossess and resell the land -- even in cases in which the purchasers had paid off much of what they owed.

"Poor man's real estate financing" is how Arkansas real estate lawyer Hal Kemp referred to the contracts. In return for loose approval terms -- no credit checks or appraisals and low down payments -- such contracts often deal severely with anyone who defaults. Typically, he said, the contract says that if a person skips payments, all previous payments are considered "rent," and any equity in the land is lost.

These were not mortgages on homes - they were sales of vacation lots. If you wanted to compare them to housing, it would be more like a rent-to-own contract than a mortgage on a house.

And there is also this that the right doesn't add:

Quote

Today, there is no trace of Soapes' transaction in the land records of Marion County. Under the terms of Whitewater's typical sales contract, which was described by real estate experts as commonly used and completely legal in Arkansas and some other states, if a buyer defaulted, it is as if the transaction never occurred.

If there is not even a record kept of a default, it is hard to imagine anything further from a "mortgage" or a sale of real property, which is documented in public records in every state.

It is amazing how far from factual the right wing disinformation machine twists its claims. Even more amazing is that otherwise intelligent people accept the propaganda as fact.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-22, 20:36, said:

As usual, there is much missing in the right wing report of these Whitewater financing land deals. This from the Washington Post. (emphasis added)



These were not mortgages on homes - they were sales of vacation lots. If you wanted to compare them to housing, it would be more like a rent-to-own contract than a mortgage on a house.

And there is also this that the right doesn't add:



If there is not even a record kept of a default, it is hard to imagine anything further from a "mortgage" or a sale of real property, which is documented in public records in every state.

It is amazing how far from factual the right wing disinformation machine twists its claims. Even more amazing is that otherwise intelligent people accept the propaganda as fact.

The word "mortgage" might or might not be technically correct. I am guessing that it is. Money was borrowed, land was put up for security. Sounds like a mortgage, but I am not a dictionary. I looked briefly at
https://en.wikipedia...i/Mortgage_loan

Regardless of the semantics. the practice seems scuzzy. Legal I assume, but scuzzy.

Legal but scuzzy happens.

Your comparison with rent to own seems to be right. I remember and article a year or so back about the practice. Of course there were examples. A woman had bought a couch on rent to own. Even if she had successfully made all of the payments, the cost would have been about twice the listed purchase price. But about half way through, let's say after ten months, she fell missed a payment and they took the couch back. And this was not the first time this sort of thing had happened to her. Of course she and her family could have gone without a couch for ten months. than she could have saved the cash instead of making payments, bought the couch outright for the amount that went into her actual payments, and brought it home owning it. Or, if money came up short, she would have the money she saved. No couch, but she would have whatever cash she had saved.


This is bad judgement on her part. But it is also one hell of a way to make a living for the guy running this business. Legal but scuzzy sounds right to me.

So:
Mortgage might be the wrong word, or maybe it's the technically correct word but conveys the wrong impression. And "scuzzy" I did not even bother to look up. but words aside, the woman from the article I read sounds not very bright, the guy in the article you cite sounds not very bright, and the people that took advantage of their bad judgment seem bright, but not of such good character.

Never give a sucker an even break. Ok, but don't expect applause.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-October-23, 10:31, said:

The word "mortgage" might or might not be technically correct. I am guessing that it is. Money was borrowed, land was put up for security. Sounds like a mortgage, but I am not a dictionary. I looked briefly at
https://en.wikipedia...i/Mortgage_loan

Regardless of the semantics. the practice seems scuzzy. Legal I assume, but scuzzy.

Legal but scuzzy happens.

Your comparison with rent to own seems to be right. I remember and article a year or so back about the practice. Of course there were examples. A woman had bought a couch on rent to own. Even if she had successfully made all of the payments, the cost would have been about twice the listed purchase price. But about half way through, let's say after ten months, she fell missed a payment and they took the couch back. And this was not the first time this sort of thing had happened to her. Of course she and her family could have gone without a couch for ten months. than she could have saved the cash instead of making payments, bought the couch outright for the amount that went into her actual payments, and brought it home owning it. Or, if money came up short, she would have the money she saved. No couch, but she would have whatever cash she had saved.


This is bad judgement on her part. But it is also one hell of a way to make a living for the guy running this business. Legal but scuzzy sounds right to me.

So:
Mortgage might be the wrong word, or maybe it's the technically correct word but conveys the wrong impression. And "scuzzy" I did not even bother to look up. but words aside, the woman from the article I read sounds not very bright, the guy in the article you cite sounds not very bright, and the people that took advantage of their bad judgment seem bright, but not of such good character.

Never give a sucker an even break. Ok, but don't expect applause.

I would say it was more like Ugly Duckling Car Sales, a company which used to operate in Las Vegas that sold cars to people with awful credit ratings. Ugly Duckling required weekly payments in cash at their dealership else the car was repossessed. When you sell vacation lots with little down, no credit check, and no documentation filed in court, you are going to attract buyers who are not creditworthy and will miss payments.

Main point: there was no awful Clinton scheme to steal people's houses after missing one payment, regardless of how the right may want to paint it.

It also helps to keep in mind the timeframe of these claims - 1977 through the early 1980s. Clintons were 30 and 31, not making huge sums, but with lots of ambition. That they did not always make the best decisions is normal, not criminal.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-23, 10:39, said:

I would say it was more like Ugly Duckling Car Sales, a company which used to operate in Las Vegas that sold cars to people with awful credit ratings. Ugly Duckling required weekly payments in cash at their dealership else the car was repossessed. When you sell vacation lots with little down, no credit check, and no documentation filed in court, you are going to attract buyers who are not creditworthy and will miss payments.

Main point: there was no awful Clinton scheme to steal people's houses after missing one payment, regardless of how the right may want to paint it.

It also helps to keep in mind the timeframe of these claims - 1977 through the early 1980s. Clintons were 30 and 41, not making huge sums, but with lots of ambition. That they did not always make the best decisions is normal, not criminal.

Not criminal is correct. Normal? A matter of opinion.

I have had many jobs, most of which I have found satisfactory. When I was 17 I worked for a couple of months as a door to door salesman, trying to convince housewives of their need for various lotions I was peddling. A more experienced guy was my mentor, and he showed me how it was done. He was very successful. I just couldn't do it. I think being a car thief would have suited me better. No, I wasn't. And the sort of business we are talking about with the Clintons? I'll pass.

Not criminal. Leave it at that.

[Kaitlyn S]

kenberg, on 2016-October-23, 11:23, said:

Not criminal is correct. Normal? A matter of opinion.

I have had many jobs, most of which I have found satisfactory. When I was 17 I worked for a couple of months as a door to door salesman, trying to convince housewives of their need for various lotions I was peddling. A more experienced guy was my mentor, and he showed me how it was done. He was very successful. I just couldn't do it. I think being a car thief would have suited me better. No, I wasn't. And the sort of business we are talking about with the Clintons? I'll pass.

Not criminal. Leave it at that.

That is largely the way I feel. While many of the things the Clintons have done might be criminal and well covered up, I can't be sure of any of them since I'm not privy to inside information. However, there are certainly many instances which indicate horrible character.

Am I saying that Trump has great character? No way, but the mainstream media has been trumpeting his character flaws ever since he won the nomination (but not before when the media considered him the Second Coming - because the others might have beaten Hillary.)

Makes Jill Stein look a lot better, would you not say?

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-23, 13:47, said:

No way, but the mainstream media has been trumpeting his character flaws ever since he won the nomination (but not before when the media considered him the Second Coming - because the others might have beaten Hillary.)

The mainstream media never considered Trump the "Second Coming".

He was treated like the main event at the freak show: Something that was profitable to to put on a stage to let folks gawk at, but never a serious choice for President.
Clinton was (essentially) leading Trump by 3-5 throughout the entire duration of the campaign with a few exceptions.
Trump is imploding right now so the final result will be a lot more lopsided, but he was never a credible candidate


Please note: There is a claim going around the Trump was the only candidate that Clinton could have beaten.
This is ridiculous. Clinton would have mopped the floor with most of the 2016 Republican field.
Cruz would have been destroyed. Carson was a joke.

The Republicans with a prayer of winning were Bush and Kaisich.
(One would have taken Flordia out of play, the other Ohio)

Quote

Makes Jill Stein look a lot better, would you not say?

Hardly. Stein is a joke, just like Johnson.

In order for third parties to be taken seriously they need to build from the ground up, not attempt to claim the Presidency and try to govern with zero institutional support.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-23, 13:47, said:

That is largely the way I feel. While many of the things the Clintons have done might be criminal and well covered up, I can't be sure of any of them since I'm not privy to inside information. However, there are certainly many instances which indicate horrible character.

Am I saying that Trump has great character? No way, but the mainstream media has been trumpeting his character flaws ever since he won the nomination (but not before when the media considered him the Second Coming - because the others might have beaten Hillary.)

Makes Jill Stein look a lot better, would you not say?

No, I will stick with Hillary.

There are many ways in which I am conservative, even if not Conservative.
If I were James Madison and if this were 1787, I might write it all up differently. But all in all, we could have done worse. Good job, Jimmy and all.
The two party system came about, long before my 1939 birth, but the heavy dependence on primaries has developed during my lifetime.
I favor sticking with both, but the primary system needs work. We don't get the best.

But for now, we need to go after simpler things. Some civil assumptions about other people, for example. It seems to me that part of the genius of the founding fathers was to recognize that people are seriously flawed. The idea was to set up a form of government that would work in spite of this fact. This requires ongoing thought.

I don't know where this all goes, but for this time around it means I am firmly in the Hillary camp.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-October-23, 14:29, said:

I favor sticking with both, but the primary system needs work. We don't get the best.

I don't know where this all goes, but for this time around it means I am firmly in the Hillary camp.

And what if the primary system is the result of creating the illusion of popular control? Rather than the bosses propping up their "candidate" and ensuring that their interests are protected, set up a bunch of patsies and back your winner through the melee. Thus, the unwashed masses think they have a choice but the candidate with the backing and resources to run the gamut is in their pocket.

Hillary is just such a candidate. The Clinton Foundation is their connection to the rich and powerful and it ensures their ability to act as a conduit for cash as well as influence. Bernie Sanders? Never a serious threat. Donald Trump has tapped into the innate desire of the common man to shake free of the shackles of dominance. If he plays that card successfully he might just trump the PTB Ace in the hole. You get what you deserve.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-October-23, 10:31, said:

Regardless of the semantics. the practice seems scuzzy. Legal I assume, but scuzzy.

Legal but scuzzy happens.

If you think this is scuzzy, you should read about the payday car loan business. "Last Week Tonight" did a segment on it a few months ago.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-October-23, 15:05, said:

And what if the primary system is the result of creating the illusion of popular control? Rather than the bosses propping up their "candidate" and ensuring that their interests are protected, set up a bunch of patsies and back your winner through the melee. Thus, the unwashed masses think they have a choice but the candidate with the backing and resources to run the gamut is in their pocket.

Hillary is just such a candidate. The Clinton Foundation is their connection to the rich and powerful and it ensures their ability to act as a conduit for cash as well as influence. Bernie Sanders? Never a serious threat. Donald Trump has tapped into the innate desire of the common man to shake free of the shackles of dominance. If he plays that card successfully he might just trump the PTB Ace in the hole. You get what you deserve.

"You will get what you deserve". My experience has been that when someone says that to me, he is not wishing me well. I have no idea what a PTB Ace in the hole is, but no matter. I understand "You will get what you deserve".

[barmar]

PTB = Powers That Be? I'm not sure how it fits in this context.

"Trump the ... Ace in the hole" is mixing bridge and poker metaphors.

Then again, Al_U_Card also said "run the gamut" when he presumably meant "run the gauntlet".

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-October-23, 15:42, said:

PTB = Powers That Be? I'm not sure how it fits in this context.

"Trump the ... Ace in the hole" is mixing bridge and poker metaphors.

Then again, Al_U_Card also said "run the gamut" when he presumably meant "run the gauntlet".

Or, as Trump would say, run the something, I don't know.

[Kaitlyn S]

Now, we know that nobody in the basket of deplorables is voting for Hillary Clinton. But almost the entire bucket of losers are?


Sanders fans and millennials are a bucket of losers

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-23, 15:54, said:

Now, we know that nobody in the basket of deplorables is voting for Hillary Clinton. But almost the entire bucket of losers are?


Sanders fans and millennials are a bucket of losers

It gets tiresome to debunk each and every little claim of the right wing mudslingers. When someone quotes what someone else has said, it does not mean that they said the phrase themselves. It would be like me saying, Trump said there were a bunch of "bad hombres", and then having someone claim that I called people "bad hombres". Hillary quoted analysts as using the "bucket of losers" phrase. She did not call them "a bucket of losers."

Please, make your arguments worthwhile, or at least get your facts straight.

On the plus side, I actually think Trump is right about the bid of AT&T to buy Comcast:

Quote

It’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The GOP presidential nominee, who has stepped up his attacks against the media in recent weeks, added that his administration would also look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBC Universal.

But the history of lax antitrust can be traced directly back to Reagan - with the Democrats willing allies, including Bill Clinton.

That still does not make Trump a viable candidate or Hillary a less viable one. It is, I would hope, a wake up call to both parties that the status quo is not good enough, that at the very least work for change is going to be necessary going forward.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-23, 15:54, said:

Now, we know that nobody in the basket of deplorables is voting for Hillary Clinton. But almost the entire bucket of losers are?


Sanders fans and millennials are a bucket of losers

Which leads to the burning question: Is a basket bigger or smaller than a bucket?

And now for a musical interlude

https://www.youtube....h?v=GtuwAJTXvTU

[cherdano]

How predictable. You complain that any link you post will be derided as coming from the unreliable right-wing rumor mill.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-23, 15:54, said:

Now, we know that nobody in the basket of deplorables is voting for Hillary Clinton. But almost the entire bucket of losers are?


Sanders fans and millennials are a bucket of losers

Then you proceed to post a link of a story that is just 100% made up.

http://www.snopes.co...cket-of-losers/

There is a lot in your comments about Clinton that is similarly wrong. But if you even fall for a straight up hoax like that and complain that people call the inflammatory-right-wing-rumor-mill-site Breitbart a right-wing rumour mill site, I guess it's a waste of time to try to convince you.

[cherdano]

Ok, I'll just do one more.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-22, 11:38, said:

using the Clinton Foundation as a tool to go from broke to worth a hundred million dollars while promising favors to foreign entities with bad agendas,

That's just laughable. The Clinton Foundation creates serious conflicts-of-interests, and while it did do a LOT of good (not just by the awful standards of family charity foundations), it may have been questionable judgement to get ambitious about this while planning a run for president.

But we know every penny the Clintons earned over the last 25 years, because they have released their tax returns, like normal candidates for POTUS do. They earned their money from books and from speeches, plus some consulting, not via the Clinton foundation. (Unless you call "Setting up a successful charity foundation, then writing a book about philantropy" as getting rich via the Clinton foundation. I think there are quicker ways to get rich if you are famous.)

Like it or not, if you are as famous in the US as the Clintons, you can convert that fame into money. Even Sarah Palin at some point made 6 digits figures per speech.

[Kaitlyn S]

cherdano, on 2016-October-23, 16:26, said:

How predictable. You complain that any link you post will be derided as coming from the unreliable right-wing rumor mill.

Then you proceed to post a link of a story that is just 100% made up.

http://www.snopes.co...cket-of-losers/

There is a lot in your comments about Clinton that is similarly wrong. But if you even fall for a straight up hoax like that and complain that people call the inflammatory-right-wing-rumor-mill-site Breitbart a right-wing rumour mill site, I guess it's a waste of time to try to convince you.

I am still researching this, but for now I will apologize. I posted in good faith, but it appears at this point that I was wrong.

Truthorfiction.com is less liberal leaning than Snopes, so I tried to find the facts there. They did not have this listed, and I assume if snopes.com just outright lied, that truthorfiction would have called them out. So it appears that my link is from the right-wing rumor mill and I bought into it, which is exactly what I believe the rest of you are doing with the crap you receive from the mainstream media. Not that I am any less convinced that you are, but sadly I fell for the same ruse that I am accusing others of falling for.

[Kaitlyn S]

cherdano, on 2016-October-23, 16:38, said:

Ok, I'll just do one more.

That's just laughable. The Clinton Foundation creates serious conflicts-of-interests, and while it did do a LOT of good (not just by the awful standards of family charity foundations), it may have been questionable judgement to get ambitious about this while planning a run for president.

But we know every penny the Clintons earned over the last 25 years, because they have released their tax returns, like normal candidates for POTUS do. They earned their money from books and from speeches, plus some consulting, not via the Clinton foundation. (Unless you call "Setting up a successful charity foundation, then writing a book about philantropy" as getting rich via the Clinton foundation. I think there are quicker ways to get rich if you are famous.)

Like it or not, if you are as famous in the US as the Clintons, you can convert that fame into money. Even Sarah Palin at some point made 6 digits figures per speech.

http://www.thegatewa...eeting-morocco/

This was reported by The Daily Caller which gets 35 million views a month. Are you also going to tell me that this is a website that spews crap?

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-23, 16:50, said:

I am still researching this, but for now I will apologize. I posted in good faith, but it appears at this point that I was wrong.

Truthorfiction.com is less liberal leaning than Snopes, so I tried to find the facts there. They did not have this listed, and I assume if snopes.com just outright lied, that truthorfiction would have called them out. So it appears that my link is from the right-wing rumor mill and I bought into it, which is exactly what I believe the rest of you are doing with the crap you receive from the mainstream media. Not that I am any less convinced that you are, but sadly I fell for the same ruse that I am accusing others of falling for.

Don't be discouraged - these people (both left and right) are extremely good at obfuscation. It requires quite close reading to see the faults in the claims, and if our bias is already in favor of the site we are reading we tend to overlook many critical points. Just yesterday I was reading a claim that the Democratic Party was trying to undermine religion in the U.S., and the article pointed to a statement from the DNC chair that Catholics should take action - and then the article took this and twisted it to say that the DNC is attempting to send in recruits to alter Catholic beliefs. It was weird - their own quotes did not support their claim. Now, that is pure propaganda disguised as news.

It is hard to believe anyone can buy into such tripe, but I know it is possible because we are subject to confirmation bias. Best we can do is acknowledge our bias and try to sort out the facts as best we can then make our own determinations.