Reap as Ye sow . . .

[rubato]

Obama is widely respected internationally as well as feared.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LOL

Must be in some alternative universe, because he sure as hell isn't in this one...

Probably the same universe where the many faceted email scandal is a "big nothing" that only right wing haters care about...

Does the Obama in the universe you're from have a beard?

[Lord Jim]

Obama isn't respected by any country on the planet? What a fucking stupid statement.He only gets applause and standing ovations from UK parliament, Canadian parliament, etc. and is lauded by citizens of friend and foe nations around the world.

What a fucking naive and ignorant statement that completely misses the point of what I said...

Gee whiz, Parliament MPs are polite enough not to moon him when he speaks, and leftist European college students applaud him...

That and five bucks will get you a latte at Star Bucks...

Our enemies laugh and snicker at him, hold him in contempt, and consider him a push over (all you have to do is look at their actions...Particularly Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Mullahs.. to see that with crystal clarity) and our friends shake their heads in nervous bewilderment, trying to push him into stronger and more decisive actions and leadership...(especially the French)

The "respect" he has from our closest ally was put on full display when he became the first American President in modern history to have the British Parliament refuse to back him in a military action. (The proposed airstrikes in Syria to punish the regime for the use of chemical weapons...A position which he subsequently and inexplicably climbed down from; further contributing to the lack of respect he has earned from other national leaders.)

My "opinion" is arrived at by observing actions taken and not taken by our allies and our adversaries, and deducing their lack of respect and/or fear accordingly.

Your opinion about this (and rubato's) appears to be yanked entirely from your butts...

[rubato]

The only recent president who is snickered at and held in contempt is George W. Bush. The worst president in 100 years. The US party who are snickered at and held in contempt by the G-20 are the snake-handling, redneck, anti-scientific, Republican party who gave us Bush and now Trump.

You have lost the ability to distinguish between total Republilying and facts.


The rest of the world are smarter than you are, they understand that Bush gave us the total failure in Afghanistan by giving the country back to the corrupt Karzai clan, and the even worse catastrophe in Iraq which has now created ISIS.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

All one has to do is look at the behavior of our friends and foes to know the truth of what I have said...

But you're too much of a brain-dead suck-up shill with absolutely no interest in facts to be able to do that...

[rubato]

Its been 8 years and still no congressional hearings about how the GOP engineered the worst economic collapse in 80 years. And what they have learned that they will not do again.


Facts, dear child. Facts. Trillions of dollars in harm.


And when will congress have hearings about how we went to war with Iraq because of WMD, with no evidence whatsoever that any existed? After Hans Blix had been looking for months? Costing us trillions, creating ISIS and leaving us with thousands of disabled soldiers we will be caring for for the next 50 years? Leaving the middle east in the worst chaos in generations.


The US GOP are a joke in the rest of the G-20. Divorced from reality. Racists.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

All one has to do is look at the behavior of our friends and foes to know the truth of what I have said...

.... "

I listed examples of behavior which refute you in the other thread. So far you are a perfect vacuum where facts are concerned. Well, you're a Republican, facts were never your strong suit.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Its been 8 years and still no congressional hearings about how the GOP engineered the worst economic collapse in 80 years. And what they have learned that they will not do again.

And not one prosecution or indictment of the bankers who actually caused it either--sorry, there was a token one but where are the rest? Both sides dance to the tune of their corporate and financial masters.

[rubato]

Your assertion of equivalence is based wholly on ignorance:

Obama has led the largest increase in prosecution and recovery from financial crimes, ever. 219 Billion in recoveries (including civil fines) is a lot. The Republican congress has done -nothing- and obstructed others.


http://www.economist.com/news/finance-a ... final-bill

The legal storm surrounding banks is largely over
Aug 13th 2016 | NEW YORK | From the print edition

THE last few drips are spilling from the tap. On August 8th Barclays agreed to pay 44 American states $100m in recompense for its traders manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). That followed a Federal Reserve announcement of a $36m payment by Goldman Sachs for the improper receipt of confidential information. Soon JPMorgan Chase is expected to say it will pay $200m to settle allegations it bribed high-ranking Chinese officials by offering internships to their children.

While these penalties are hardly trivial, they are small compared with what went before. Federal criminal prosecutions of financial firms in America were almost non-existent before the 2008 crisis. They then took off, accompanied by civil litigation, often co-ordinated with state attorneys general, and followed by private lawsuits.
In this section


It is not quite over. Negotiations continue over allegations of foreign-exchange manipulation by a dozen large banks. Barclays will not be the last to settle over LIBOR. But cases tied to three large categories—mortgages, tax evasion and the dodging of sanctions—have largely run their course. Barring a surprise, an era of costly litigation may soon come to an end.

All told, there have been 188 settlements since 2009, costing $219 billion, according to KBW, an investment bank. Another 278 announced actions are pending a resolution. Eleven firms have paid fines in excess of 10% of their market capitalisation (see chart), with Bank of America having spent the most in absolute terms ($77 billion) and in relation to its net worth (50%).

These costs have caused banks to change how they act. Some of this is merely form. Candid e-mails have become unacceptable risks. The investigation into JPMorgan’s hiring of interns stemmed from explicit records—favour-granters will now act quietly.

Global banks once considered much of their value to come from operating everywhere, and particularly in difficult environments. Now, in countries where bribery and shady customers abound, and the cost of compliance to meet these circumstances exceeds the potential for legitimate profits, banks are pursuing “an alternative form of crime reduction—they are pulling out”, says Jennifer Arlen, a professor at New York University.

Questions have also been raised about how settlement money has been used. No cohesive accounting exists. Many states treated their take as a windfall gain. A congressional hearing in May cited several deals arranged by the Department of Justice that allowed banks to reduce their overall payments in exchange for channelling money to housing advocacy groups supported by the Obama administration, rather than directly to victims.

The most controversial legacy is the lack of individual accountability. In response to pervasive criticism, the Justice Department formulated a new approach, announced in September by deputy attorney general Sally Yates in a speech at New York University. “Our mission here,” she said, “is not to recover the largest amount of money from the greatest number of corporations; our job is to seek accountability from those who break our laws.”

Since then, little has happened to illustrate the new approach. It could be too soon; cases can take years to build. The real test may have to come in the next crisis.

There has been a lack of individual accountability, true, but that is a matter of inadequate law. And a disproportionate part of the problem was due to non-banking institutions like Countrywide.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

And yet only one person who participated in these activities was prosecuted; the banks paid fines which were far less than what they made by their activities. the nly way to prevent these things is to go after the persons responsible, not the institutions who see the fines as a cost of doing business--kind of like the store that chains its fire doors shut and pays a $50 fine every now and then. We have the laws to prosecute the individuals, but not the will in the executive. Yet you persist in the republicans bad, democrats good rhetoric.

Talk about ignorance... Or is it willful blindness?

eta:

At the end of the post you quoted

The most controversial legacy is the lack of individual accountability. In response to pervasive criticism, the Justice Department formulated a new approach, announced in September by deputy attorney general Sally Yates in a speech at New York University. “Our mission here,” she said, “is not to recover the largest amount of money from the greatest number of corporations; our job is to seek accountability from those who break our laws.”

Since then, little has happened to illustrate the new approach. It could be too soon; cases can take years to build. The real test may have to come in the next crisis.

Targeting and prosecuting individuals lawbreakers should be the way these cases are handled; but thus far nothing. Maybe we just have to wait for the nest crisis?