Scrolling down the comments there is a plethora of blocks. The troll desperation is a palatable thing, sortta like a big steaming pile of Gowdy stinking in the noonday sun.

Remember...if the Republicans stood even the slightest chance...they wouldn't be here.

It's a direct relationship......desperation = trolls

We saw the same thing in 2012

The funny thing is their belief that the IG's report attacks Clinton. It doesn't. It questions her actions, but then it attacks the entire GOVERNMENT system which caused people to, including her predecessors, to resort to private email accounts and private equipment. The retention issue was mitigated by her production of all business related emails and her voluntary production of the server. The government has copies of all of the emails which were on that server, including personal, and evidence that it had never been compromised. The government system, on the other hand, had been compromised.

The DOJ is saying no evidence of any criminal offense.

Hey, Trolls: I won't read nor respond to you. You can stop trying. I'm sick of your ignorance and immaturity. I want no interaction at all with any of you. Go play with someone who cares . . . it is not me.

Blyn, you make a key mistake: You assume the majority of our right-wing nuts look past headlines, read details and such. No, they think "Hillary GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!!!!" Even Red State does it and they're actually among the more sane on the right, as evidenced by the slew of "I hate Hillary but dammit, she wouldn't be as much a disaster for us all than Trump would be" comments and full articles.

They don't read anything.

As proof, look how Dennis and others link to stuff and don't even bother realizing the actual article condraticts their entire point.

I don't read their posts. Haven't read that troll's posts, knowingly, since last fall.

Both trolls are reported for harassment.

What's very telling is how little they have to say about Trump. There's a minimal amount of actual support for their candidate. Almost nothing positive to say about him. Hardly any promotion of his policies beyond the wall.

How do you killfile? Been trying to find out.

The issue is that Congress has refused to provide funds necessary to keep the government up to date with new technology. Software and hardware are both out of date and inadequate in many government offices.

Exactly. That's what the report notes. The only thing that these dimbulbs are reading is about Clinton, but they aren't reading the report. The entire system is noted to be out of date and inadequate. It's already been noted by the group responsible for records keeping that Clinton mitigated any issues with retention by turning over the emails and the server. There is no criminal intent nor is there any evidence of an actual crime. There is no aha here.

Reported for harassment.

The paranoia is that a more efficient Information System for the government would mean more efficient spying on Patriots. Or something like that. It's been going on since the punch card era of computing.

"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated," it concluded. "Secretary Clinton's cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."

The "Condi and Colin did it too" defense is now effectively off of the table

And apparently I'm back on killfile...funny but I've received up votes from her when I trashed Trump.... They're all acting like they've just been told there's no Santa Claus

The right-wing trolls' desperation level is approaching DEFCON 1.

More like Defecate1

Code Brown

Hillary Clinton was one of the first people in Congress to warn about the subprime mortgage crisis and try to do something about it.

At the same time Trump ran a business that cold-called Americans and talked them into subprime mortgages, promising that the housing market would be strong for years to come. He later said that he hoped the housing market would crash because he would be able to profit off of this.

This is a simple fact.

and her husband was responsible for the legislation requiring banks to make loans to those without assets. I am still waiting for Hillary to admit that mistake.The Banking Act of 1933 effectively separated risky speculative investment from traditional FDIC protected functions like issuing mortgages and small business loans. The repeal of this law at Bill Clinton's behest led directly to the toxic-mortgage meltdown of 2008, and the rest is a depressing history of economic stagnation.

That's actually not factual, but even assuming it is... What does that have to do with Trump selling subprime mortgages as last as 2007, promising that the housing market would be strong for years to come? I hold Trump personally responsible for that business decision. Do you?

"and her husband was responsible for the legislation requiring banks to make loans to those without assets."

Evidence?

see above

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999...

1999?

how about 2004 - 2007?

"Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.

State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in.

Another 22 percent came from federally regulated lenders like Countrywide Home Loans and Long Beach Mortgage. These lenders weren't subject to the law, though some were owned by banks that could choose to include them in their CRA reports.

Among lenders that were subject to the law, many ignored subprime while others couldn't get enough."

http://www.ocregister.com/a...

No, show the actual order to "requir[e] banks to make loans to those without assets".

The CRA loans were NEVER "stated income" or "stated assets" zero down or negative amortization loans. They were qualifying loans based on income, assets and credit worthiness.
Wall St didn't need any help figuring out how to write that bogus paper.

Yes, but they got help. Freddie/Fannie would buy mortagages from originators, pool them, then sell them to Wall Street.

The Federal Reserve is the biggest culprit. Go back and look at savings rates from that period. There were no savings to back all of the phony credit issuance! That creates a bubble.

Consider the foregoing, then realize the Fed has been doing the exact same thing for many years only on a far grander scale. The bubbles in bonds and equities that the Fed has blown are far larger than its housing and dotcom bubble.

We are headed for a massive correction.

"Require banks to make loans to those without assets..."

Freddie/Fannie would just buy up the loans from the originators, or once the Federal Reserve fueled credit bubble really got heated up, the originators could just sell to the securitizers on Wall Street.

Hillary Clinton didn't do anything to stop it. She didn't even realize there was a bubble.

As bad as Trump is, at least he saw the bubble and inevitable collapse coming.

Not those without assets but below the poverty line with bad credit or no credit who couldn't qualify for traditional loans. It's what Clinton euphemistically called "creative financing." It was Clintion's Affordable Housing Program that unleashed the disastrous, unprecendted tsunami of subprime mortgage lending that eventually blew up the housing market and enabled smart investors like Trump to buy up real estate at bargin prices.

http://www.villagevoice.com...

What was unreal or untrue about the V V article? What was unreal or untrue about HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, with Bill Clinton's approval, convincing Fannie and Freddie to recklessly and dangerously increase their portfolio of subprime loans which profoundly corrupted the banking industry and blew up in 2008? Indeed, what precisely did the Clinton/Cuomo Affordable Housing Program (principally designed for low income people) have to do with Glass Steagall and Bush's wars? If there were no GS or Bush wars, or if Bill Clinton had four terms and was president in 2008, the crash would have happened all the same, right?

If you don't like the V V article maybe you'll find this 1998 NY Times article more to your liking

http://www.nytimes.com/1999...

And perhaps even more suitable is this book written by NY Times financial writer Gretchen Morgenson on the central role Bill Clinton's polices played in the crash

http://www.amazon.com/Reckl...

-------------

You are a hilliary and bill butt munch!

Where's the order, Sixpac?

No, you said banks were "required" to make loans to people with no assets. That requires a written order. Where is it? No 'read between the lines'. A firm, direct written order. Without that, there's no "requiring" involved.

Every Federal banking law, rule and regulation is published and readily available to anyone with the native wit to read English.

Lenders who "read between the lines" tend to wind up "behind the bars."

Here is the order:

"You've noted that since the inception of our fair lending initiative in 1992 the Department has filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits. We are going to continue these efforts under the Acting Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee in every way that we possibly can. We will continue to focus on discrimination in underwriting, the process of evaluating the qualifications of credit applicants. This was the issue in our suits against Shawmut in Boston, Northern Trust Company in Chicago, and First National Bank of Donna Anna in New Mexico."

https://www.justice.gov/arc...

When the government is suing you for not doing something - that constitutes and order to start doing it.

16 of your loonie-left friends upvoted you comment, too uninformed to know it was completely erroneous.

Go on, Jim. Quote the next part.

Yeah like Obama's guidance on transgender bathrooms. No written rule just threat of withholding funding. You are really a dope if you don't know how it works.

We are talking public financial institutions, here. What federal funding do they get, and how can it be withheld?

You are trying to change the subject. The Civil Rights Act gives Obama the power to withhold funding from public institutions that refuse to follow the law.

When dealing with places like banks, yes.

Dude too bad your parents didn't abort you!

That is how government works. They have things called laws.

quibbling.