Replies to post #784508 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

You keep touting #2 in post after post, as if it's a fact and must be true.

I never said it was a fact. It is a logical conclusion.

When faced with the possibility of a senior-to-common conversion the most common argument as to why Treasury won't do it is that they would immediately get hit with lawsuits. As in, Treasury wouldn't dare even try such a conversion because of what the courts would do to them. Treasury being ready to do it anyway in late 2020 proves that argument wrong.

Others may view the same event (Treasury considered conversion but did NOT execute it), and interpolate it differently than you do.

If you think there is a logical argument for the opposite of my conclusion, by all means try arguing the other side.

Note that I didn't say that no lawsuits would be filed at all. Only that Treasury's actions show that they don't care whether or not those lawsuits are filed.

Treasury almost did something, but didn't... therefore it means they don't fear anything... It's a non-sequitur.

You're putting words in my mouth now. Classic strawman fallacy.

My argument is specifically this: Treasury almost converted the seniors to commons, therefore they don't fear any lawsuits that might arise from said conversion. You can't just replace "senior-to-common conversion" with "something" and "lawsuits that might arise" with "anything" and act as if my argument would be the same.

The January 2021 letter agreement, specifically the definition of "Litigation End Date" on page 3, is proof that Treasury is aware of and cares about litigation pertaining to the conservatorships and NWS. There is no logical argument to be made that they would not have even considered potential lawsuits when making that decision.

Not a good look for you given your auto-signature of logical fallacies.

You are the one committing the logical fallacies here. First a strawman, and now an ad hominem.