Politics & Current Events
cincychick35
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
2016 Presidential Election
I know we have a long time to think about this. But who do you think might be a good choice for a Republican candidate? Someone who will be able to appeal to more than just grumpy old rich men.
Do you think it would be a Christie, a Jindal, a Rubio?
Re: 2016 Presidential Election
I am not a Republican, but I would never vote for any of those men. Huntsman, Powell, or another moderate Republican could maybe sway me depending on the other candidates.
I will say that if she does well in the Senate, we may see Elizabeth Warren running, and unless she changes a lot in the next 4 years I would be excited to vote for her.
I do like President Obama though, so the next four years can go by slowly for all I care.
Bobby Jindal is the governor of LA.
Thanks for your input, I am interested especially in hearing from democrats in who might be a candidate who is relevant for all people.
I will have to read up on Warren, I will admit I really no nothing about her other than she is a Dem.
I don't know who Jindal is but I do like Christie and Rubbio. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run!!
Elizabeth Warren I can't stand.
Here's a long profile on Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111
I think as far as Christie goes, let's see how he does. He
hasn't even completed one term as govenor. I don't really
understand all the excitement over him. Is it because he is
on the TV every time we turn it on? Because he acts like a
spoiled bully half the time?
I do like what he did to prepare for this past storm, and Irene.
But I need a little more than that.
He is a little too my way or the highway for me.
I have no opinion on Rubio, or Jindal at this time. I need to
research them.
Why can't you stand Elizabeth Warren?
I would love to see her run. And I agree with missymo, Republicans need to nominate a Jon Huntsman type. Although, that will likely anger a large part of their base. It's the only way they have a chance.
I've heard Jindal speak and do like him. Though I need to brush up on his policies.
Scott DeJarlais of TN?
kidding.
I don't like Christie at all. Being the president is as much about about public persona as it is about policy. I don't live in NJ, so perhaps the state has benefited under Christie, but he just comes across like such a blowhard. I can't even fathom him representing this country on an international level.
And I am honestly curious if anyone thinks he would pass the physical? I don't even know if there is a minimum health requirement or if its just tradition, but I want my president to be healthy.
Totally agree.
You know, in revisiting Jon Huntsman's website, I don't understand why he didn't go farther than he did.
He seems like a no-nonsense kinda person. I just remember all the pundits saying that Mitt Romney was the only one who could beat Obama...well we all know that wasn't true.
I just hope this gives the Republicans the kick in the a$$ it needed to move them into this century and give us a candidate who just "gets it."
it's easier said than done to kick someone out of your party. Neither the right, the libertarians, the greens or the liberals have a lock on crazy.
Elizabeth Warren couldn't (and shouldn't IMO) pass the vetting on her personal/professional life. She's gotten caught in too many lies and using misrepresentations at best to advance her personal cause.
I too love Bobby Jindal but on a shallow level it might be the accent
I really hate that a viable 3rd party seems to be such a pipe dream at this point. Also today's party star is just one office dalliance away from writing a book on their previous time in office.
Because he dared to say that evolution and climate change were real things and not vast left-wing conspiracies.
I agree with all of this.
Like what?
And please don't tell me you're talking solely about the whole Native American thing.
Am I the only conservative to realize there is no such thing as a perfect candidate? I may not agree with everything about Huntsman....but his economic plan made a whole lot of sense (to me) and for a lot of people the economy was a big factor in the election.
I now kinda feel robbed that Mitt Romney was shoved down my throat as the one and only person who could get the job done.
Please know, I am not complaining...I am actually glad I get this opportunity to reevaluate the things that are important to me.
no, she also had some issues with her law license. I believe it was murky and not anything the legal community of Mass. chose to address. However, in the legal profession the standard of care the is most recommended is typically that if you question whether something is ethical or not then the best course is not to pursue it. Her choice in both situations shows me a lack of regard for this standard and really just ethically in general.
As a practical matter her CFPB has recently passed a policy that makes borrowers real estate matters in north carolina about a billion times less protected than they already were. They bulldozed right into something that they knew nothing about how it worked and set about policy that leaves people UNprotected.
I'm not a fan.
The law license issue was BS:
http://masslawyersweekly.com/the-docket-blog/2012/09/24/warren-law-license-matter-called-non-issue/
I'd be interested in learning more about the CFPB issue, though. Can you tell me more about that?
uh, no your not. my mom liked huntsman as well. everyone thought romney was the best pic because he could appeal to the dems that didn't want to vote obama. he was not my first pic either. There will never be a perfect candidate.
vlagrl, good I am glad. (I wasn't trying to be snarky - I hope you know that)
it's long and complicated but here goes:
In NC you are not allowed to close real estate loans unless you are the lender or an attorney. To do so is considered the unauthorized practice of law. As a practical matter attorneys are insured both through their malpractice insurance and through a title insurance practice called an Insured Closing Letter. (Lenders are guaranteed by a separate unaffiliated title company that the attorney will do as instructed) There are some closing companies (not attorneys) that will send a notary around to your house to close your loan HOWEVER they are NOT allowed to answer any questions about your financing documents other than to tell you where to sign. It is a felony to do so. If you don't understand your interest rate, by law you are to be instructed either to sign or not sign and nothing more if you are not meeting with an attorney. People who visit local attorneys get an hour of their time (at the table not to mention the before and after) and documents are thoroughly explained and questions can be asked. It's hard to feel like some of the reason some people got burned on those crazy loans in the housing bubble burst were people who didn't understand negative amortization and other aspects of variable rate financing.
Anyway, the CFPB has passed a mandate that all lenders are responsible for vetting all people who deal with money in the transaction. Sounds good in the broad sense. What has happened is though is that each lender has set up or contracted with different independent companies to do their vetting for them because lenders never handle these types of things themselves. Those companies are in turn charging NC Real Estate attorneys $300 -$1500 for just themselves (this will be an annual fee) and another $300-$500 for each member of their staff to go through the vetting process. Last year was a slow year and we closed loans with over 60 lenders. Let's just say you have 2 people in your office and we'll go with an average of $500 per vetting that's $30K per year in additional costs for a 2 person office and last year was a slow year. Now imagine you have 5 people working for you and you are looking at over $100K per year miniumum in extra operating costs.
what will happen is:
a) attorneys will pass the cost on to their clients. This is particularly sad because NC has the lowest number of title claims per year than any other state AND the lowest title/attorney closing costs in the country. This will likely double and probably way more than double the cost to the consumer
b) due to the number of lawyers leaving real estate (and this IS happening) the only people left are going to be the out of state closing companies that send people to your house that can't answer questions and aren't required to hold the same type of E & O insurance OR what we call legal mills, which are firms with a billion attorneys will send some brand new attorney just out of law school with little or no real estate experience to go close your loan.
c) title insurance premiums in NC are regulated by the NC Insurance commission. They cannot exceed certain amounts. However, if you use an out of state closing service with their own out of state title company you can and will pay whatever they want to charge. A good example would be something here that might be a $400 premium might be $2800 in Florida (an actual transactional example I've seen the documentation on from a client).
Transactional real estate law is one of the areas of the law where you learn about 90% of what you use on a day to day basis as you go vs. what you learned in law school. Most law school graduates would have trouble doing an actual title search much less closing a loan without some guidance, mentorship, internship, etc with a practiced real estate attorney.
As a practical matter it wasn't bad attorneys that had anything to do with this housing crisis and I daresay as far as NC goes it would have been MUCH worse had they not been involved. During the subprime days it was not uncommon to really get into the nuts and bolts of how someone's loan worked and have a client decide that this was a disastrous loan for them and not as described by their loan broker so they walked away. That was GOOD for the consumer. Being told to sign where the little sticker is on your paper and paying at least double what you would last year is NOT so good for the consumer.
I won't even go into the number of title issues we've fixed from out of state closing companies doing things to get loans closed that really messed up people's titles. Those people then paid us to fix it because they couldn't refinance or sell their house.
ETA: Just for reference: In NC, Attorneys typically charge between 400-700 for a residential real estate transaction. That's a freaking bargain for all of that protection you get and deep pockets to go after.
Someone who will not pander to the Tea Partiers and other extremes in the party.
Someone who will be bipartisan for the sake of being bipartisan instead of for the sake of reelection.
Does this person exist?
I liked Hunstman. A lot. I might have voted for him if he'd gotten the nom instead of Romney.
No joke.
For real?
That surprises the heck outta me - in a good way.
For real.
I agreed with a good many of his ideas but I mainly liked him because he wasn't a politician, as it were. He was himself and he didn't make any attempts to sugar coat what he thought was dumb.
It was refreshing and it made him ultimately unelectable.
Yeah... I don't know if I would have voted for him, but I would have been comfortable with the idea of him as president. I felt the same way about McCain until he picked Palin as his running mate.
I knew you were not snarky:) sometimes the snark flys above my head and sometimes I don't even notice snark.