HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Matt Stoller is trying to...

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:44 AM

Matt Stoller is trying to convince people to not vote for Obama



Cenk Uygur, host of Current TV's "The Young Turks," asks Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, why the Obama administration hasn't done more to challenge Wall Street and the big banks, and what Stoller thinks Mitt Romney would do if he were elected. Stoller answers that because Mitt Romney changes his positions so often, he might be easier to convince than Obama. "Barack Obama is a neo-liberal ideologue," Stoller says.
Tune in Weeknights at 8:00/7:00c on Current TV

Read the comments of those he has convinced here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/matt-stoller-obama-as-neoliberal-ideologue.html

15 replies, 1922 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Matt Stoller is trying to convince people to not vote for Obama (Original post)
ProSense Apr 2012 OP
ProSense Apr 2012 #1
Kokonoe Apr 2012 #2
ProSense Apr 2012 #4
cali Apr 2012 #3
ProSense Apr 2012 #13
banned from Kos Apr 2012 #5
ProSense Apr 2012 #6
banned from Kos Apr 2012 #7
dsc Apr 2012 #9
banned from Kos Apr 2012 #10
dsc Apr 2012 #12
banned from Kos Apr 2012 #14
dsc Apr 2012 #15
MADem Apr 2012 #8
ProSense Apr 2012 #11

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:06 PM

1. Kick, and

Stoller views on Romney and the banks and Paulson and TARP 2 are completely delusional.

He's actually advocating that Romney might not be so bad and the Obama has been worse than Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:06 PM

2. Matt Stoller should just be happy.

Truth be damned.


OK good job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kokonoe (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:10 PM

4. Yeah

"Truth be damned."

I mean, claiming that Romney would allow the banks to fail and might be better for us than Obama, who should have agreed to more TARP to get cram downs is wonderful "truth."

Anyone who believes that Congress was going to pass a serious cram down package in return for more TARP (more friggin TARP) is delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:07 PM

3. what a tool. moron. idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 05:00 PM

13. Yeah,

let it sink. It's utterly moronic stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:13 PM

5. The whackjobs at Naked Capitalism love Stoller. They want to "punish"

 

President Obama for not ginning up bogus fraud cases on bank CEO's.

Because if a person was foreclosed on - it MUST be bank fraud!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:20 PM

6. Nope

They want to "punish"

President Obama for not ginning up bogus fraud cases on bank CEO's.

Because if a person was foreclosed on - it MUST be bank fraud!


I don't believe that for a second. That's a bogus cover, there is something else driving the drivel Stoller is spewing.

No one would be making the case for Romney and hyping Bush (and pushing more TARP) based on that argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:32 PM

7. Well, I would be interested in your theory (and it will be just that).

 

I provided mine.

read the comments over there - those NC people are nuts.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/matt-stoller-obama-as-neoliberal-ideologue.html#comment-703417

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 01:08 PM

9. they were hardly ginned up

the banks wound up settling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 01:14 PM

10. they settled on robo-sigs

 

"fraud" is intentional deception to deprive someone of property. Robo-sigs were just an improper signature done for expediency.

Fraud is still on the table if an AG wants to go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 02:13 PM

12. actually it was the definition of fraud

the signature wasn't there for decoration. It was there to attest the the fact they had certain documentation which they apparently didn't have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 05:12 PM

14. Well, 50 state AG's never did muster one single criminal case based on your

 

definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 08:08 PM

15. Over half of them are GOP and had no desire

and the rest got cut off at the knees by the settlement. The fact they settled is a good indication they knew they were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:51 PM

8. Mr. "Let the car companies fail" would be easier to convince?

Mr. "Skip that bolt inspection on the big dig, resulting in the death by crushing of a newlywed woman on her way to the airport and a lawsuit costing much more than the price of the inspection" Mitt?

He is an idiot who will say anything to win. He was a shitty governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 01:45 PM

11. It's delusional.

I mean, who makes the argument that Obama is "neoliberal ideologue" (whatever the hell that means) using an example of him turning down a deal that included more TARP?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread