New Rule: The Tragedy of Trump Voters
   
21
votes
   
Submitted by BSR
Comments (showing 10 of 12)
Surprisingly balanced, for him.
1  
written by Ginrummy33

Wow, Bill Maher gave more coverage to Ashli Babbit who was killed in cold blood by .gov than the mainstream media did. And we still don't know who murdered her!
-2  
written by TangledThorns

Killed in cold blood?! Do you not understand the term? It absolutely does not apply here. For once, police shot the right unarmed citizen. My only gripe is there weren't hundreds more terrorists killed attacking America. I'm fairly certain you would agree, if only they were Muslims instead of Trump cultists.

Edit: We will never know who murdered her because she was killed in self (and national) defense. That’s not murder, it’s legal and proper homocide, and incredible restraint (or involvement and support) from police.

How much mainstream media do you watch, because I saw plenty of coverage about her, her past, her family, and her more recent spiral into madness. I’m guessing you’re basing your claim on what Newsmax and OAN said, not any real evaluation of actual media coverage.

She was violently forcing her way into the last secure area where representatives were hiding from the murderous mob hunting them that she was spearheading. A mob that had already murdered a police officer and set up a gallows to hang representatives on.

Please post your address so I can send over a murderous mob to kill you and your family in horrifically torturous ways for disagreeing with me, keeping in mind you have indicated you have no right to defend yourself....or maybe think before excusing armed and murderous insurrection and an attack on congress as somehow peacefully demonstrating instead of deadly treason and an attempted murder filled coup.
4  
written by newtboy

Little bit of irony to call for regulations to prevent ultra high interest loans then decry all the red tape in California.
0  
written by smr

I'm curious why you think enforcement of existing usury laws is the same as new building codes.
If you loaned a friend money and charged over 10% interest, in many cases they don't ever have to pay you back anything because that's usury. Payday loan companies are only allowed to charge 1600% because they bribed congress to make them exempt from the law.
1  
written by newtboy

Just a few from the day after....


1  
written by newtboy


1  
written by newtboy



There are dozens of these about her from mainstream media....and I think Bill counts as mainstream media too.
Why is every statement right wingers make a bold faced lie these days. What the fuck happened to you all? Trump has made you all into seething liars frothing at the mouth over the lies you tell each other.

🤦‍♂️
1  
written by newtboy

I think you mean they wouldn't have to pay you the interest. They would have to pay you back the principal. And that would be under specific cases and usually when no contract is involved, also all depends on where you live.

Also, I don't think either Bill's building codes are "new" vs. the usury laws being "existing". Please cite to support.

The irony is that additional laws to stop predatory lending are, in fact, what red tape is made of, by definition. So I found it amusing that he would look at her situation, say that Nancy and team were trying to solve it for her by passing new laws, then go on to complain about all the red tape surrounding this building. That red tape exists because someone else before him saw a problem or safety issue or concern, and put yet another policy or law in place to solve it. In reality, as your posts prove, her problem was not that a predatory lender got involved in her life, but that her business was in bad shape because she had gone off the deep end and was thus losing customers.

I could easily imagine a bit where he showed a stack of papers four inches thick that he had to sign to get a loan, and complain about the processing time, then showcase an SMS based loan that works in another country and funds in one day.
1  
written by smr

I think that's at the discretion of the judge, if you asked for 15%, likely you'll get your principal back, if you asked for 1500%, chances are you won't get a dime back as punishment, and may end up owing the borrower if you went overboard trying to collect.

I live in California, building codes change constantly. I agree, it is maddening and often backwards. He was specifically talking about codes for building stand alone solar, which are newer building codes. Even old building codes are often poorly thought out and contradictory. I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of red tape here, especially for building.
That said, his contractor should have been aware of all codes, submitted his plan, and would have approval or notes on what to change in weeks tops. There's something wrong when it takes over a year to get a shed built, some reason his plans weren't approved like they weren't to code.
Citation : personal experience - I installed solar in California, it took 3 days for my permit approval....and only that long because my contractor was being lazy.

That's the thing I disagree with, no new laws are needed at all, just a removal of exemptions/deregulations for businesses that pay large enough bribes (contributions) to elected officials. Even making all credit businesses operate on the same rules, allowing them 30% interest, seems ok, but that isn't reality today. It's unconscionable to allow 1600% interest on loans peddled to desperate people that don't actually qualify for a real, legitimate line of credit, many of whom don't understand it's what they're agreeing to, but the payday loan lobby is well funded and connected.
Citation:
Although U.S. states set their own maximum legal interest rates, a Supreme Court interpretation of the National Bank Act of 1864 preempted state usury laws and created a path toward a national consumer lending economy. The most important federal case in credit card interest rate deregulation was decided in 1978.

Her problems were multifold. The predatory loan took a fixable issue, her terrible customer service, and compounded it with insurmountable and ever expanding debt, which in turn undoubtedly hurt her customer service more, thus increasing her debt..... It sounds like she never should have purchased a service oriented business, and likely overextended herself from day one just to do it.

I'm unsure of your point in the last paragraph.
0  
written by newtboy


login or sign up to comment