It may not be as significant but they still have a hand in unions and construction in general. So when the government gives out contracts to do works they are still getting a cut. Especially here in New York.

Oak im not gonna shit on you bc ur a dem and im a republican but you're flat out wrong when it comes to the mob, unions and which party is more corrupt...the unions have ALWAYS voted democrat and the majority of mob corruption cases are always involving democrats...the entire 1st ward in Cook County Illinois is a prime example..that city and that ward is the most corrupt in the nation over the last century by far and its wholly been run by democrats who were tied in with the mob...pat marci was a made guy in the outfit and served as alderman an elected fuckin govt official for I think 2-3 decades!!!!

Want an east coast example?.. Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio a democrat was bought and run by Richie the Boot and the NJ genovese and went to prison....mike Matthews the former mayor of AC bought and run by Scarfo..also went to prison...BOTH democrats...not to mention JFK won the ill and wv primaries in 1960 bc of the outfit and the teamsters again ALL democrat

Get ur facts straight and quit reading shit from CNN and MsNBC..the democrats have overwhelming been the most corrupt party aligned with the Mafia since the 1930s and thats not debatable..im not saying the Republicans arent guilty of corruption in other areas like oil companies and defense contracts..but when it comes to the mafia its always been the liberals end of discussion..they've even had wiseguys like Sam the Plumber, Momo Giancana and others on tape saying they always vote and back dems bc theyre historically friendly and bribable from members of OC..not sure where u got ur info from but in this case pal it's wrong

I meant they don't care about good government. They don't care about government by and for the people. The mob only cares about making money. You seem to think I'm arguing with you, I'm not! I think you make some good points.

That's not always the case. Some of the building trades unions in local and state elections have endorsed Repubs if they disagreed with the local Democratic people on issues, usually involving environmental opposition to projects their members wanted to be employed on. And they learn to live with Republicans in towns and counties where the Democratic Party can't win.

Fleming thats a fair point i pry shouldn't have stated such a sweeping generalization i sound like the Donald.. But ud agree id assume that the majority of the time at least historically unions across America have usually voted Democratic , especially the Teamsters

My main point though is that the mob has historically been involved with political corruption through the Democratic Party .. And I think thats pretty cut and dry especially considering the numerous examples I cited starting all the way back with Tammany hall and up through the more recent examples in Chicago, Newark, and AC... And i forgot to
Mention Camden mayor Milton Milan who was involved with John Stanfa and the Philly fam who subsequently went to prison as well.... And I didn't even mention Detroit who had a streak of I believe 4-5 straight Democratic mayors indicted and convicted of bribery.. Altho i dont know how many of them were connected to LCN.. Point being political corruption and the Mafia largely involves the Dems

Not as tiring as whatever your reason is, I'd bet.

Read the tread title. It's present tense. The OP is asking who would be more beneficial to the mob today. And the answer is a Republican, considering there is practically nothing Democrats can do for the mob today. There's a lot the GOP could do, however, with the mob's involvement with Wall Street in the past 30 years. And, one commenter here thinks we should regulate Wall Street even less and make it easier for the mob to infiltrate the stock market, among the other drastic results of deregulation.

Pat Marcy.

OMFG.

Do you guys have anything from this century?

"Historically"

"Historically"

"Historically"

THIS ARGUMENT IS A COP OUT. It's off topic. The thread's OP does not ask this question. They clearly ask who would be more beneficial to the mob today.

It's not partisan politics that have dominated this thread.

It's spin.

Well, have you or do you ever read anything outside your own confirmation bias bubble? Do you actively seek out the best well thought out opinions and arguments that go against conventional thought?

And it is tiring, being that we had a big financial meltdown in 2008, and after all these years people still want to regurgitate the same conventional opinions about the "deregulation" that supposedly caused everything. I thought the same back then but cmon it's been this long and there's so much info out there suggesting otherwise.

back to my original point, there's not a big difference between the two major parties on the federal level. Republicans have taxed, spent, regulated everything just as much as the dems.

You're still spewing bullshit. Wall Street? I wouldn't expect you to know this because you obviously don't follow the mob all the closely but it's involvement in the stock market is largely a thing of the past. The peak of the pump and dump scams were in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It's tapered off considerably since then and the cases, or lack thereof, bare that out. And the FBI said back in 2014 that the mob wasn't as involved as it was in stock scams. Meanwhile, there is still quite a bit of labor racketeering in certain areas.

So, no, your "It's a Republican president" nonsense isn't going to fly. Seriously, quit talking out of your ass.

Many here would say you're guilty of exactly that. Stick to defending your own arguments rather than starting others.

Many? Like who? You know damn well I don't talk out of my ass. I haven't said anything in this thread that isn't factual or I can't back up.

My comment is not limited to this thread. You really have to stop making flaming comments.

Teamsters endorsed Nixon. I think because of parole issues with Hoffa? And IIRC, Reagan, too. President Carter deregulated the trucking industry and it was not good for the Teamsters. I guess they thought if the Democratic is going to be like a Republican might as well vote R.

I asked you what was a more likely cause of the crash than deregulation, and you still haven't answered.

I ran a thread on this a long time back, got pretty interesting as well

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...7143#Post767143

I didn't read your post as an actual question.

This also goes off topic but let's start with the fact that the craziness on Wall Street and the causes of the crash in 08 was 100% caused by government intervention in the market, and not "deregulation" the easy go to and lazy explaination.

Starting with the government created banking cartel, known as the Federal Reserve System which manipulates interest rates and destroys the natural market forces of supply and demand for money. Under Alan Greenspan rates were artificially suppressed which created the dot com bubble and eventually a housing bubble.

Artificially low interest rates distort the market system and encourage reckless behavior. Too much money and credit flood onto Wall Street through the banking system, and this encourages debt both in the private sector and in government. Big financial institutions become highly leveraged and to make matters worse, government promises bail outs in the case of failure.

Add On top of that politicians pushing regulations so that banks lend to people who obviously shouldn't qualify for home ownership. The new money coming from Wall Street which comes from the Fed then bids up the actual costs of homes which makes legitimately owning a home even more difficult. Total disaster.

Some how "deregulation" causes all of this?

How about the Fed stop flooding Wall Street with easy money so that it doesn't turn into a giant casino? Of course you can always make an argument for yet even more regulation when the entire system is inherently flawed to begin with. I'd rather strike at the root cause.

reagan also used the cia to flood the inner cities with drugs

Oak- are you fucking illiterate or what? Did you read that fuckin original question from Nicky? It reads and I quote " I don't know if it affects things today, but back 30,40.50 years ago were conditions for the mob better under a Republican presidency or a Democratic one?"...i mean holy shit what did you think he was asking?

Hes very clearly asking about historically what party was better for the mob and I very clearly answered that with my examples. Before you spout off try reading the fuckin original thread before calling names and dismissing my response when I was 150% spot on. My answer unequivocally indicates that the DEMOCRATS have historically been the party that was better for the mob. I gave you 4 examples from the last 30, 40, 50 years WHICH IS WHAT NICKY WAS ASKING ABOUT.... Anything else you wrote is flat out wrong. It would be great if you could acknowledge your mistake and that Ivy and I were right..

SC- just my 2 cents so dont jump down my throat please...but i have to stick up for Ivy, I dont think he was writing anything inflammatory at all. Oak was being a prick and was completely off base with what the OP asked. If you go back and look at Oak's responses hes attacking Ivy and being rude himself so to me Ivy's vitriol was in response to that... I by no means am an Ivy fan considering I ask the guy questions and give him compliments on his mob knowledge and he responds condescending and rude sometimes...but his research and knowledge are spot on and I don't think in this case he was trying to stir shit or be inflammatory, merely responding to Oak's posts....again Just my 2 cents, not in any way telling you or the other mods what to do, you guys do a great job keeping this open forum running smooth and full of good shit..

-Mike

You want me to acknowledge that Ivy was right when he said that Ronald Reagan was the first president to crack down on the mob? How about I acknowledge that it was possibly the biggest lie ever told on the internet?

mikey, I'll give you the same warning. Asking someone if they are fucking illiterate has no place on these boards. It's rude and it is flaming; two things we want to avoid here. I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree with someone but do it respectfully. Ivy has been here long enough to know that, and so have you.

It is virtually impossible for me to read and review every posted message. I will comment on those in which I see something wrong.

Personally and FWIW, I am a registered Democrat. Even with that statement I guess the Dems have been, in general, more corrupt than the Republicans. Chicago and northern Jersey politics prove that but let's be honest that BOTH parties aren't all they pretend to be. Just my 2¢.

No I want you to acknowledge that you busted my balls and were rude saying my examples were wrong and too old and shitting on people for giving past examples, when that IS EXACTLY the question the OP asked for. Its a sign of maturity and intelligence to admit when you're wrong, and I have no problem doing so, but apparently you do.

As far as Ivy's statement, you would have to talk to him on it, but I think what he meant was during Reagan's presidency were the first uses of the RICO law across the country not to mention the Commission case. So technically hes right, but also I can see where you're coming from in that JFK would really be the first President to go after the Mob, but other than surveiling them and attempting to Deport some of them, his efforts were for not after November 23, 1963

SC - you're right, my apologies for writing that inflammatory thing about Oak. I was simply responding to his attacks and insults about my post which turned out to be correct..but he didnt insult me and I shouldn't have. I would hope you would acknowledge my track record here as being a respectful poster that doesn't post inflammatory stuff and tries to positively contribute to this site..but not an excuse I get that , my bad.

However, SC if you read my post I conceded that Republicans are just as corrupt in plenty other areas of government and by no means are above reproach even though I am a registered Republican. I dont think one party is more or less corrupt than the other, I think they both are equally corrupt and thats clearly what I said..

BUT you have to admit in terms of corruption related to the Mafia the DEMOCRATS are hands down the far guiltier party and I dont think thats really up for debate. I mean I have provided 4 famous examples in different cities and I'm sure there are more, but again this is just in relation to Mob Corruption/labor unions.... without speaking for Ivy, I can say for myself that was part of the frustration regarding Oak's position bc even though hes entitled to dislike and disagree with Republicans, the facts are the facts when it comes to the Mafia and corruption ONLY.

That's fine, mikey. There is no problem with anyone arguing a political point here. We only want that argument to be civil; without name-calling. Both (major) parties are corrupt and the wiseguys are certainly no better. They can all go to hell. But that's just my opinion. If you have a different opinion please post it, but don't call me names for my beliefs. Nothing good can come out of that.

Beat me to it... The narrative about some mythical deregulation that happened right before the crash is a really pervasive yet utterly unfounded analysis, and is in essence just a rhetorical tool used to attack freedom of association and the free market. It's hilarious when people peddle the lie that somehow Wall Street is some type of unfettered market when the financial sector was and is arguably the most regulated sector in the entire economy, AND that the government has had both hands in it, distorting the market through tax incentives and direct subsidies of failed housing policies with Fannie and Freddie.

It's also a crucial mistake to assume deregulation is somehow beneficial to mobsters, the examples are easy to find that the contrary is true, e.g: mobbed up unions utilizing "legit"(lol) union rules and regulations to apply to those unwilling to play ball with the mafia and destroy their ability to work on sites or bid, Senator Cannon being called upon to block a bill that would have seen the industry deregulated, etc etc.

haha SC did I call you any names? I dont think I did and I would never nor would I call anyone any names for the party the affiliate with, including Oak. i shouldnt have called him illiterate but that was in frustration regarding the OP questions dispute, not because hes a Dem and I'm a Republican...I respect your opinion wholeheartedly..I just think based on the examples and what ive read the Dems are way more involved in mob/union corruption than Republicans

I didn't mean "me" personally, but asking someone else if they're "fucking illiterate" is only going to start a war.

There are some here who are just obtuse when they make arguments. If you deal with someone like that (to the point that they are REALLY annoying) use the "Notify" feature and one of the moderators will handle it.

Right wingers have to insult people they disagree with. It's just part of the mentality. The very basis for their politics is to uphold the power structure, and that means isolating, ridiculing and insulting anyone that challenges it. It's a knee jerk reaction. They can't help it.

Yea and leftist never insult people they disagree with. They never engage in character assassination, or call anyone racist, homophobic, sexist, and they always provide well thought out arguments instead of smug remarks of non-arguments. They don't try to shut down free speech against people they disagree with either, right?