LawTalkers - Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=880)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 512986)

No one (but you just now) has said "all Jews vote D" or do anything monolithically.

This was actually the point I was making when I said "you are completely incapable of seeing facts that might undermine your scathing rebuttals of the ignorant, sheltered generalizations that nobody here is actually making."

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 513002)

Since Dodd Frank, it takes longer to close, and it's harder to qualify for mortgages. You know title people, and bankers. Ask one how much longer it takes, and how much more detailed underwriting has to be.

So, to make it simple, remove every part of Dodd Frank that slows down closings, and relax the ability to repay guidelines to allow more buyers into the market without having to select federally backed loans.

Quite literally, ask your compliance person to list every time consuming duty he or she has, identify the reg that is responsible for it, and remove it.

Is that weedy enough?

I'm still guessing at what provisions you're thinking about.

Dodd-Frank increased the capitalization requirements for Banks, which made a lot of banks, especially banks that were on the edge, become much more selective. That may be the thing that most impacted people's ability to qualify for mortgages, because banks making fewer loans will tighten up their criteria. Securitizing normal loans also became a bit harder, and securitizing junk loans became much, much harder, because banks used to fill up their pools with the loans they never should have made anyways.

Dodd-Frank also increased some of the closing process for junk loans - if you're getting a loan at more than 6.5% of prime (in other words, you're a really bad credit risk and probably have collateral that is of questionable value), the bank has some additional warnings and processes that they have to go through. That might impact the closing process, but only for junk and predatory loans. I cannot think of what would impact the closing process from Dodd-Frank for a good loan, once the loan decision is made.

At the bank I know best, the good customers get their loans in the same time it always took. There's nothing in Dodd Frank that slows down a good loan to a good customer made on the bank's own base. There are some added costs from it, particularly because that bank has raised capital in order to stay in the top tier of well-capitalized banks, and that's threshold has moved higher. There are also some added benefits from it, since some of the weak banks doing crazy-assed shit got reined in, so there's less competition from dumb money. The bankers I know, when really pressed, would admit that the weak banks that screw stuff need all this regulation and more but would also want exceptions in every case for the strong banks who wouldn't make those loans anyways.

I take from your general reaction, though, that the people you know in banking are pretty sleazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 513012)

He's talking about 70% of the people he encounters at cocktail parties.

TM

Think about this. You're throwing a cocktail party. You decide to invite Sebby.

Who are you and who are the other guests at the party?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 513013)

I can't believe I'm doing this, but 71% is not "coin flip." It's a stupid hypo, because it would never happen,but if I had actual proof or 71% for a preponderance issue it would be malpractice not to put it in. Plus half my issues are clear & convincing.

And election margins are the best relative test. Americans as a whole toggle between 55/45 or closer. So 70% is pretty high, but if it takes 85% for you to see overwhelming, okay.Would you agree that the D/R split among Jews is 400% of the typical margin in elections? To me that is overwhelming.

That's an even less convincing way to state it.

I'd say "just shy of three out of four Jews vote D."

And I'm sorry, but no way am I voting for liability if you offer me 71% probability. I'm not holding anyone accountable for anything with numbers like that. And I can think of endless arguments to make to a jury to dismantle evidence showing a 71% probability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 513010)

No idea who the "everyone" is you are talking about. There's a lot of work being done as an organized response -- registering voters for 2018, finding ways to challenge gerrymandering, addressing judicial appointees by means of legal challenges, etc. Mostly grassroots-funded groups. It kind of sounds like you are talking out of your ass and haven't looked into what is actually going on. Whether any success comes out of all this is anyone's guess, but people aren't just sitting around unfocused.

I got to say, I've been protesting shit and working in elections for about 40 years, and this resistance crowd may be the nicest, most sincere and thoughtful group of people I've hung with. Really. Not a lot of nasty sectarians or hard-core ideologues. They're all much, much nicer than I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 513019)

Think about this. You're throwing a cocktail party. You decide to invite Sebby.

Who are you and who are the other guests at the party?

I would invite Sebastian to my cocktail party. Legit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 513016)

I call it a coup because any time you put a head of state in the cross hairs for something like obstruction of justice, or perjury over a blow job, you're opportunistically capitalizing on an attempted cover-up. In both Clinton's and Trump's cases (yes, I believe this as to Trump, himself), the only "crime" was the attempted cover-up.

Sorry. I read everything else you wrote intently and was going to respond, but this swallowed the rest.

Are you saying that he has been trying desperately to cover up something that you don't consider a crime? Or that there is no actual underlying crime? I'd like you to be specific, because when it all comes out and you say, "I always thought Trump was dirty," I want to have a post that I can refer to.

TM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 513020)

And I'm sorry, but no way am I voting for liability if you offer me 71% probability. I'm not holding anyone accountable for anything with numbers like that. And I can think of endless arguments to make to a jury to dismantle evidence showing a 71% probability.

Preponderance is 51%. Is it more likely than not that x infringed the patent. Say it turns on the meaning of one word, and 3 of the 4 possible definitions (all equally common) result in my guy winning*. You think I'm not telling the jury that, you're nuts. "4 possible meanings, 3 go my way, Sebby's guy wins with the fourth, but also take into account blah blah blah." Mal. Pract. Ice. Not. To.

*earlier this week GGG hosted me having a dep about whether a mark in a Japanese patent is a hyphen or a negative sign. How can this be my life?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 513019)

Think about this. You're throwing a cocktail party. You decide to invite Sebby.

Who are you and who are the other guests at the party?

Only my fellow New York-bubble people.

TM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 513022)

I would invite Sebastian to my cocktail party. Legit.

2. If I invite LT socks I would invite everyone because about 30% of you guys stand me up. Still an overwhelming majority of you would show up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 513024)

*earlier this week GGG hosted me having a dep about whether a mark in a Japanese patent is a hyphen or a negative sign. How can this be my life?

To me, this is perfection. Better than a case decided by the Oxford comma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 513002)

Is that weedy enough?

An overwhelming majority of what you say strikes me as being extremely weedy. Like, blunted-off-your-ass, falling down and spilling your Cheetos weedy. Which is part of the reason I would invite you to a cocktail party. If you started talking politics, the other guests would just laugh and assume that you couldn't handle your weed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 513027)

To me, this is perfection. Better than a case decided by the Oxford comma.

I only wished dtb's lt career had lasted long enough for her to know I'm now the Board expert in punctuation litigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 513029)

I only wished dtb's lt career had lasted long enough for her to know I'm now the Board expert in punctuation litigation.

I see dtb now and then and will definitely pass this on. Expect fireworks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 513023)

No underlying crime by Trump himself.

I'll say it again: Putin would never directly collude with Trump. Trump is too stupid.

And I don't think collusion is a crime anyway.

Trump subordinates involved in crime? Sure. Of course.

Trump possibly involved in financial crime of some sort unrelated to Russiagate (but perhaps involving Russians and tax fraud of some kind)? Sure.

But yes, I do not think Trump himself engaged in any underlying crime he was seeking to cover up.