This was on Hannity so take it with a grain of salt, but he said that Trump (running unopposed) got more votes in the Texas republican primary on Tuesday than Sanders, Biden, and Warren got combined in the democratic primary in Texas. And I've seen some other good numbers for Trump in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries. Seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Republican voters to get out vote for him.
I saw this talking point as well.. but it conveniently leaves out that Bloomberg finished 3rd, not Warren. If you add up all the D's, they exceed 2MM whereas Trump is 1.8MM. I believe there were other issues on the ballot as well. Either way, I don't think D's win TX so it's not particularly meaningful. It's just a R talking point.
I noticed it leaves Bloomberg out purposely in order to make the point they're trying to make. And call it a republican talking-point if you want, but I didn't perceive it like that. What's the point of Hannity bringing it up? To pat Republican voters on the back for voting in an unopposed primary? Or to praise Trump? Knowing Hannity, those probably ARE the reasons to bring it up so it's reasonable for you to dismiss it as a republican talking point. But I still find it to be an interesting factoid that's worth being aware of. At least for me.
Id take a closer look at those pictures of voters waiting to vote at 1am and the nearly 500,000 increase in democratic turnout from the last primary.
If they are resorting to pretending Bloomberg's vote is really republican(he was for 5 years because the NYC dems prevented him from running for mayor)...
and without it trump got more votes, I see it as more desperation on their side. It's still an R state.
Sad. She was the best choice and would have taken Trump apart on the mythical debate stage. Now it will just be two (too?) old men yelling at each other and very easy for people to pretend they are same.
I am very thankful voters and poll respondents and Massachusetts residents responded to her in the way that they did. I'll stop there as today is not the day to pile on.
You can pile on. If you guys are wrong about Biden I will never, ever let you forget it, so fair is fair.
Hes not the best, I liked pete more but knew it is not Pete's time yet.
We rest drove 29 candidates and could not take down Biden. So let's hope he continues to improve
Men his age almost always continue to improve physically and cognitively.
I kid. I will 100% vote for Joe, I will 100% defend Joe, and I 100% hope you are right about Joe.
Sad. She was the best choice and would have taken Trump apart on the mythical debate stage. Now it will just be two (too?) old men yelling at each other and very easy for people to pretend they are same.
I am very thankful voters and poll respondents and Massachusetts residents responded to her in the way that they did. I'll stop there as today is not the day to pile on.
You can pile on. If you guys are wrong about Biden I will never, ever let you forget it, so fair is fair.
Hes not the best, I liked pete more but knew it is not Pete's time yet.
We rest drove 29 candidates and could not take down Biden. So let's hope he continues to improve
Men his age almost always continue to improve physically and cognitively.
I kid. I will 100% vote for Joe, I will 100% defend Joe, and I 100% hope you are right about Joe.
Honestly I have my fingers crossed. But I dont see the M4A candidates winning. And The country isnt ready for Pete yet.
Maybe Amy is the best, but she just didnt get the votes
I always remember that Joe Biden is more progressive than many realize/remember. He can be moderate but also progressive. I'm ok with voting for that because he's a decent man and we need that.
Biden's not pure as the driven snow, and I don't agree on every single policy stance he's taken
what do?
Are you sure? lol j/k. There are no perfect human beings...not a single one...even though some think they are. There's a wave happening out there, I think, and if that's true, I'm really enjoying seeing people rise up with their vote.
And about Pete from someone's post...one thing I caught when Joe Biden was accepting Pete's endorsement is that he used the phrase "deep bench" in talking about Pete's future in the party. I really liked what Pete said while campaigning as I did for most of them but experience is important to me. I would absolutely vote for Pete in the future. I'm also looking forward to Joe Biden bringing many of his primary opponents into a Biden administration.
Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.
Thanks for the fresh post. I won't quibble with many of your points, even if I may not agree in full. I will say your statement on banks is 100% false. I work and have worked in senior roles that focus heavily on loss reserves, lending standards, recession planning, etc. There is not one situation where we have ever forecasted government funds or counted on them. In fact, the whole process is covered by Basel III rules, and was recently even enhanced on what is called the CECL accounting rules, which require banks to reserve even more than ever before. And there are some very, very fundamental misunderstandings about TARP that I would be happy to correct if people ever have questions.
Second, this term "precariat"...who are these rich and powerful people that describe most of us that way? I have never heard this before.
ultimately all banks and credit bureaus forecast being bailed out for poor decisions. If this was a true capitalism all those financial institutions that are too big to fail would fail and be replaced by something else. Since financial institutions doing business in the US know that they will receive a bailout based on every major disaster since the savings and loan scandal they effectively use the sure bet of a bailout life vest to take riskier decisions than they should that benefit stockholders and the board of directors at the cost of taxpayers.
Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.
Thanks for the fresh post. I won't quibble with many of your points, even if I may not agree in full. I will say your statement on banks is 100% false. I work and have worked in senior roles that focus heavily on loss reserves, lending standards, recession planning, etc. There is not one situation where we have ever forecasted government funds or counted on them. In fact, the whole process is covered by Basel III rules, and was recently even enhanced on what is called the CECL accounting rules, which require banks to reserve even more than ever before. And there are some very, very fundamental misunderstandings about TARP that I would be happy to correct if people ever have questions.
Second, this term "precariat"...who are these rich and powerful people that describe most of us that way? I have never heard this before.
Also if you can explain TARP to me I would greatly appreciate it. Something of course that diverges from the if our financial institutions aren’t saved our economy will fail. I am truly interested.
Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.
Thanks for the fresh post. I won't quibble with many of your points, even if I may not agree in full. I will say your statement on banks is 100% false. I work and have worked in senior roles that focus heavily on loss reserves, lending standards, recession planning, etc. There is not one situation where we have ever forecasted government funds or counted on them. In fact, the whole process is covered by Basel III rules, and was recently even enhanced on what is called the CECL accounting rules, which require banks to reserve even more than ever before. And there are some very, very fundamental misunderstandings about TARP that I would be happy to correct if people ever have questions.
Second, this term "precariat"...who are these rich and powerful people that describe most of us that way? I have never heard this before.
ultimately all banks and credit bureaus forecast being bailed out for poor decisions. If this was a true capitalism all those financial institutions that are too big to fail would fail and be replaced by something else. Since financial institutions doing business in the US know that they will receive a bailout based on every major disaster since the savings and loan scandal they effectively use the sure bet of a bailout life vest to take riskier decisions than they should that benefit stockholders and the board of directors at the cost of taxpayers.
Okay, few things... 1. I am aware of the academic word 'precariat' which as you point out refers to that class of people just above the transient line. The way you framed your original statement, I read it as though you're saying the "elites" use it as a slur, sort of like if I call the people who work for me "plebs" or "commoners". The concept of precariat seems to have originated in a field of study, not in a board room or wine tasting.
2. While I can't necessarily speak for every bank, I can have worked at or closely with at least 7 of the top 10 largest consumer lenders (not institutional lending). These companies absolutely do not include 'bailout' as part of their credit loss forecasting. I can't say whether Freddie or Fannie do as I do not have deep experience in the mortgage space. Now if you want to argue that credit risk decisions they make IMPLICITLY assume some sort of bailout, that's a fairly esoteric argument. But there was a generation of leaders between the S&L bailout and TARP. And the S&L business is nothing like large bank consumer lending. I can tell you that in no way did I or anyone ever think about bailout when I was a senior credit officer. And I held a very senior role at one of these institutions until 2010. I worked through the the down turn in the early 2000's and the recession in 08. It would be completely insane to assume that the gov't would bail out a bank individually. None of these banks would have been bailed if they were the only one and not associated with a total market crash. I would have been walked to the door if I tried to use an assumption of gov't funding as part of vintage analysis.
3. You need to draw a line between credit bureaus and banks. From a business perspective they have zero in common. Credit bureaus are simply data engines and repositories, a central place for lenders to essentially share information. Large banks do not use credit scores. I know that's counter to popular belief, but the sophisticated ones do not. We had our own credit and risk modeling and we bought data from bureaus to feed our own algorithms. Now I'm not saying that there was no overlap between the two. Someone with a 785 is going to be a good risk generally speaking, but that's because of all of the underlying payment history, debt to credit ratios, debt to income ratios, etc., that drive the standard FICO scores.
4. Regarding TARP, there's a lot to it, but most believe that all the banks needed the cash. This is fundamentally untrue. My bank did not. We had enough in reserves to ride out the worst of the crisis and still keep the loan losses in line. However, the Fed and the Bush and Obama administration did not want to signal to Wall Street which banks were strong and which were weak, creating a market run on those banks. So many banks had to take the money and paid it back as soon as they were allowed to do so. It's easy to speculate which ones needed it vs didn't, based on the numbers that were released in subsequent quarterly earnings. Certain ones absolutely did, but it's nearly the number that anyone thinks. And TARP was fully paid back even by the weakest banks, with interest. Although if you calculate it, it was probably a minimal profit for the gov't/people.
Whew.. that was a lot. Wrote it while in a meeting. It's a bit of a pet peeve to say the banks caused the crisis in 2008. They didn't. Everyone was complicit, from the buyer to the real estate agent, to the broker, to the bundler to the underwriter. I can sleep at night knowing that neither I or my company ever had anything to do with mortgage lending and bundling.
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
Agreed, but it's from before she left the race. My money is that she doesn't endorse anyone for a while, and then Biden if he is strong in Michigan and FL, to tell Bernie to leave. I don't think she endorses anyone before Michigan. Just a feeling. I think she's going to play the middle road here.
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
1) The Hill 2) you
nice disinformation campaign you got there
I wouldn't call it disinformation. I'd call it 'dated'. It was from before Super Tuesday voting completed and she was advocating for herself. If she said that today, then it would be a signal as to where her head is for an endorsement.
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
Agreed, but it's from before she left the race. My money is that she doesn't endorse anyone for a while, and then Biden if he is strong in Michigan and FL, to tell Bernie to leave. I don't think she endorses anyone before Michigan. Just a feeling. I think she's going to play the middle road here.
I don't see what she has to gain to endorse (?). All the pressure is to endorse Bernie, but she is smart and knows he is:
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
Agreed, but it's from before she left the race. My money is that she doesn't endorse anyone for a while, and then Biden if he is strong in Michigan and FL, to tell Bernie to leave. I don't think she endorses anyone before Michigan. Just a feeling. I think she's going to play the middle road here.
I don't see what she has to gain to endorse (?). All the pressure is to endorse Bernie, but she is smart and knows he is:
And why would she endorse Biden? To be in the good graces of the THE ESTABLISHMENT or try to get into Bidens administration?
If she was to endorse Bernie. She should have done it live at the next debate and ganged up on Biden on live television.
WARREN: YOU REPUBLICAN-IN-DISGUISE SOCIAL SECURITY CUTTING PIECE OF FILTH!
BERNIE: YOU AINT HALF THE MAN FIDEL CASTRO WAS BITCH!
BIDEN: ...m-m-mommy help
The question is...what's the upside of endorsing Sanders? She is a Democrat. She is fundamentally the establishment. Maybe she does want a job. The other big reason you endorse is part of an agreement to include part of your platform into the nominee's platform. So unless she thinks Bernie has a real path, then Biden or no one is the logical choice. Now maybe she is thinking of a 2024 run and she thinks she can bring Bernie's peeps in with the establishment. But that's a reason not to endorse because endorsing Bernie now could alienate her from the party.
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
Agreed, but it's from before she left the race. My money is that she doesn't endorse anyone for a while, and then Biden if he is strong in Michigan and FL, to tell Bernie to leave. I don't think she endorses anyone before Michigan. Just a feeling. I think she's going to play the middle road here.
I don't see what she has to gain to endorse (?). All the pressure is to endorse Bernie, but she is smart and knows he is:
And why would she endorse Biden? To be in the good graces of the THE ESTABLISHMENT or try to get into Bidens administration?
If she was to endorse Bernie. She should have done it live at the next debate and ganged up on Biden on live television.
WARREN: YOU REPUBLICAN-IN-DISGUISE SOCIAL SECURITY CUTTING PIECE OF FILTH!
BERNIE: YOU AINT HALF THE MAN FIDEL CASTRO WAS BITCH!
BIDEN: ...m-m-mommy help
The question is...what's the upside of endorsing Sanders? She is a Democrat. She is fundamentally the establishment. Maybe she does want a job. The other big reason you endorse is part of an agreement to include part of your platform into the nominee's platform. So unless she thinks Bernie has a real path, then Biden or no one is the logical choice. Now maybe she is thinking of a 2024 run and she thinks she can bring Bernie's peeps in with the establishment. But that's a reason not to endorse because endorsing Bernie now could alienate her from the party.
She could do it to make one last bang to point out her, and their shared progressive agenda. But what do I know. I have never worked as a campaign manager.
If she wanted to endorse him and believed in him, she would have done it before super tuesday I guess. When he was still a viable option.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
1) The Hill 2) you
nice disinformation campaign you got there
I wouldn't call it disinformation. I'd call it 'dated'. It was from before Super Tuesday voting completed and she was advocating for herself. If she said that today, then it would be a signal as to where her head is for an endorsement.
Call it what you want The Hill is intentionally divisive and constantly misleading
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
Agreed, but it's from before she left the race. My money is that she doesn't endorse anyone for a while, and then Biden if he is strong in Michigan and FL, to tell Bernie to leave. I don't think she endorses anyone before Michigan. Just a feeling. I think she's going to play the middle road here.
I don't see what she has to gain to endorse (?). All the pressure is to endorse Bernie, but she is smart and knows he is:
And why would she endorse Biden? To be in the good graces of the THE ESTABLISHMENT or try to get into Bidens administration?
If she was to endorse Bernie. She should have done it live at the next debate and ganged up on Biden on live television.
WARREN: YOU REPUBLICAN-IN-DISGUISE SOCIAL SECURITY CUTTING PIECE OF FILTH!
BERNIE: YOU AINT HALF THE MAN FIDEL CASTRO WAS BITCH!
BIDEN: ...m-m-mommy help
The question is...what's the upside of endorsing Sanders? She is a Democrat. She is fundamentally the establishment. Maybe she does want a job. The other big reason you endorse is part of an agreement to include part of your platform into the nominee's platform. So unless she thinks Bernie has a real path, then Biden or no one is the logical choice. Now maybe she is thinking of a 2024 run and she thinks she can bring Bernie's peeps in with the establishment. But that's a reason not to endorse because endorsing Bernie now could alienate her from the party.
She could do it to make one last bang to point out her, and their shared progressive agenda. But what do I know. I have never worked as a campaign manager.
If she wanted to endorse him and believed in him, she would have done it before super tuesday I guess. When he was still a viable option.
Hopefully the party loyalists and establishment will do more to win over the more progressive side of the party if Biden does become the nominee. I don’t think this election can be won with just base support. There is a reason that millions of Americans are behind Bernie, it isn’t the man, it is what he represents. Real change, not the Obama feel good platitudes, but actual drastic change that is needed. Regulation of the banking industry, closing corporate loopholes, strengthening unions, affordable/free higher education, taking a serious look at military spending, etc.
Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat. Because keeping a workforce in a constant state of insecurity prevents organizing of labor and other movements that could actually threaten consolidated corporate power and bring about actual change and programs that people desire.
Neo-liberalism isn’t much better than neo-conservatism, one meets with banks the wealthy and those in power in private rooms and in public tells a different story about social change and the other just blatantly says business interests are the most important interests in a democracy.
There is a lot of talk of middle class and the working class in this election, but what does that even mean? It is rapidly becoming plain to see that there are two classes, the upper class ie the establishment and wealthy regardless of political party and the rest of us, the under class. Sure within the under class there are people that have a worse situation due to gender or racial inequality or sexual orientation or gender identifying characteristics, but the fact remains that we are all part of the underclass. The nice thing about that is that if all of us in the under class get together we have the numbers to force change through action and democracy. That is what the candidacy of Bernie represents.
As for Trump, well yes the guy is a complete dirtbag and embarrassment to us all, or should be. If you don’t think he is an embarrassment you aren’t paying attention.
In summation my take is the reason for the rise of a more socialist left is because the underclasses have been so exploited and under represented for so long it seems like the only option. The reality is that this was brought about by the status quo of both parties putting some mythical bottom line spreadsheet based economy ahead of the welfare of the society, which is what democracy is actually supposed to be about.
I will still vote for the Democratic nominee but don’t think that we have a chance to win if all we are doing is voting against Trump. If the establishment wants to ensure a win slide a little to the left and give people something to vote for.
wow it feels good to rant and ramble
Well said...
Yes, well said . . . and I will add that nothing Bernie represents will ever happen. We all spend way too much time and energy on the presidency. Bernie Sanders will not get a single piece of legislation through Congress. And if he does, the courts will stop it. The only thing electing Sanders will get us is four more years of division, and his form of division up against the Trumpists' form of division will be very dangerous for this country. That is exactly why I will not participate in the "revolution." Thanks but no thanks.
I just caught a snippet of Warren on ABC World News. She was asked what role gender played, and she gave a great answer -- if she said it played a role, she would be called a whiner. If she said gender played no role, women everywhere would ask her what planet she's on. I was a Klobuchar supporter until Monday night, and she would have been a fantastic president. But Warren would have been an absolute delight to watch in a debate against Trump.
I wish Harris hadn't made such poor calculations in her strategy. And Tulsi Gabbard, doesn't she have similar military credentials as Mayor Pete? But we make fun of her? I'm glad so many women ran. They were all fantastic. I hope women continue to run and run and run until we truly own 50% or more of our government's offices and positions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Nervous about MI. Open primary. Ill be voting Joe.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
because when I look for insight into Warren and the DNC, the first place I would trust is The Hill
It's a quote and a video m8...
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
1) The Hill 2) you
nice disinformation campaign you got there
I wouldn't call it disinformation. I'd call it 'dated'. It was from before Super Tuesday voting completed and she was advocating for herself. If she said that today, then it would be a signal as to where her head is for an endorsement.
Call it what you want The Hill is intentionally divisive and constantly misleading
I think the Hill is okay on the straight reporting. Obviously Solomon was a huge problem for them and they are dealing with the fallout. The opinion articles are slanted right, but I also notice that theKrystal Ball crap takes dead aim at the moderates every time. So I agree that the ownership has a clear strategy to divide dems. I do read the news though because they publish fast and they aren’t written by children like at HuffPo.
Comments
Id take a closer look at those pictures of voters waiting to vote at 1am and the nearly 500,000 increase in democratic turnout from the last primary.
If they are resorting to pretending Bloomberg's vote is really republican(he was for 5 years because the NYC dems prevented him from running for mayor)...
and without it trump got more votes, I see it as more desperation on their side. It's still an R state.
I kid. I will 100% vote for Joe, I will 100% defend Joe, and I 100% hope you are right about Joe.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Honestly I have my fingers crossed. But I dont see the M4A candidates winning. And The country isnt ready for Pete yet.
Maybe Amy is the best, but she just didnt get the votes
There's a wave happening out there, I think, and if that's true, I'm really enjoying seeing people rise up with their vote.
And about Pete from someone's post...one thing I caught when Joe Biden was accepting Pete's endorsement is that he used the phrase "deep bench" in talking about Pete's future in the party. I really liked what Pete said while campaigning as I did for most of them but experience is important to me. I would absolutely vote for Pete in the future. I'm also looking forward to Joe Biden bringing many of his primary opponents into a Biden administration.
ultimately all banks and credit bureaus forecast being bailed out for poor decisions. If this was a true capitalism all those financial institutions that are too big to fail would fail and be replaced by something else. Since financial institutions doing business in the US know that they will receive a bailout based on every major disaster since the savings and loan scandal they effectively use the sure bet of a bailout life vest to take riskier decisions than they should that benefit stockholders and the board of directors at the cost of taxpayers.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
1. I am aware of the academic word 'precariat' which as you point out refers to that class of people just above the transient line. The way you framed your original statement, I read it as though you're saying the "elites" use it as a slur, sort of like if I call the people who work for me "plebs" or "commoners". The concept of precariat seems to have originated in a field of study, not in a board room or wine tasting.
2. While I can't necessarily speak for every bank, I can have worked at or closely with at least 7 of the top 10 largest consumer lenders (not institutional lending). These companies absolutely do not include 'bailout' as part of their credit loss forecasting. I can't say whether Freddie or Fannie do as I do not have deep experience in the mortgage space. Now if you want to argue that credit risk decisions they make IMPLICITLY assume some sort of bailout, that's a fairly esoteric argument. But there was a generation of leaders between the S&L bailout and TARP. And the S&L business is nothing like large bank consumer lending. I can tell you that in no way did I or anyone ever think about bailout when I was a senior credit officer. And I held a very senior role at one of these institutions until 2010. I worked through the the down turn in the early 2000's and the recession in 08. It would be completely insane to assume that the gov't would bail out a bank individually. None of these banks would have been bailed if they were the only one and not associated with a total market crash. I would have been walked to the door if I tried to use an assumption of gov't funding as part of vintage analysis.
3. You need to draw a line between credit bureaus and banks. From a business perspective they have zero in common. Credit bureaus are simply data engines and repositories, a central place for lenders to essentially share information. Large banks do not use credit scores. I know that's counter to popular belief, but the sophisticated ones do not. We had our own credit and risk modeling and we bought data from bureaus to feed our own algorithms. Now I'm not saying that there was no overlap between the two. Someone with a 785 is going to be a good risk generally speaking, but that's because of all of the underlying payment history, debt to credit ratios, debt to income ratios, etc., that drive the standard FICO scores.
4. Regarding TARP, there's a lot to it, but most believe that all the banks needed the cash. This is fundamentally untrue. My bank did not. We had enough in reserves to ride out the worst of the crisis and still keep the loan losses in line. However, the Fed and the Bush and Obama administration did not want to signal to Wall Street which banks were strong and which were weak, creating a market run on those banks. So many banks had to take the money and paid it back as soon as they were allowed to do so. It's easy to speculate which ones needed it vs didn't, based on the numbers that were released in subsequent quarterly earnings. Certain ones absolutely did, but it's nearly the number that anyone thinks. And TARP was fully paid back even by the weakest banks, with interest. Although if you calculate it, it was probably a minimal profit for the gov't/people.
Whew.. that was a lot. Wrote it while in a meeting. It's a bit of a pet peeve to say the banks caused the crisis in 2008. They didn't. Everyone was complicit, from the buyer to the real estate agent, to the broker, to the bundler to the underwriter. I can sleep at night knowing that neither I or my company ever had anything to do with mortgage lending and bundling.
Warren will get support Biden
this is not a bookmark
... what... is... there to trust or not trust...
2) you
nice disinformation campaign you got there
And why would she endorse Biden? To be in the good graces of the THE ESTABLISHMENT or try to get into Bidens administration?
If she was to endorse Bernie. She should have done it live at the next debate and ganged up on Biden on live television.
WARREN: YOU REPUBLICAN-IN-DISGUISE SOCIAL SECURITY CUTTING PIECE OF FILTH!
BERNIE: YOU AINT HALF THE MAN FIDEL CASTRO WAS BITCH!
BIDEN: ...m-m-mommy help
If she wanted to endorse him and believed in him, she would have done it before super tuesday I guess. When he was still a viable option.
Call it what you want The Hill is intentionally divisive and constantly misleading
Bernie is dead in the water? What?
Florida's primary must be coming up soon
I wish Harris hadn't made such poor calculations in her strategy. And Tulsi Gabbard, doesn't she have similar military credentials as Mayor Pete? But we make fun of her? I'm glad so many women ran. They were all fantastic. I hope women continue to run and run and run until we truly own 50% or more of our government's offices and positions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022