Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

Really? A straw man? How sweet of you to ignore my entire post and the whole point.

Nope, I addressed you comment about there not needing to be as many debates with just two serious candidates, than you go on a tirade how you were tired of debates last cycle.
Last cycle there were 26 debates, this cycle it's 6. Also the Establishment has put in rules that if any of the candidates debate outside of these 6 dates, they would be barred taking part in any of the DNC organized debates.

But sure call me a straw man.

This type of hyperbole is reason to never take you seriously.

Nope my hyperbole is not much worse than someone who equates 26 Debates as being too much and 6 to be just enough. Like people have pointed out it's pretty clear what the DNC is doing and why they are doing it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Sanders vote on TARP alone should disqualify him from office. Even Bush was on the right side of it.

Very funny. You can see who supports what when they advocate for trillions of unfettered money pumped into financial institutions who caused the crash themselves.

Bernie opposed TARP because that bill gave the banks no rules or even any sort of accountability measures from the FED on what they would do to prevent another collapse like the one they JUST caused. If one thinks that just shoveling money at the banks with no restrictions is helping the people, i can see why people are in such a rush to protect certain interests.

I don't see why there are so many corporate defenders. You people, unless you are rich aren't someone who gains from banks gaming the system and seeking profit above our own country's well being. Hell even if you are rich its a reckless idea. Why do you rush to their defense as if you are their cheerleader, as if they are someone you know personally?

They are too powerful a conglomerate and their concentrated power must be broken down. Its that simple

 

[Angry Grimace]

The main reason for that is DNC protecting her from the debates till December. That's when her nomination will get unraveled like it did last time.

I don't even know where people get this delusional belief that Bernie Sanders is going to completely own the debates and be this monster asskicker that Hilary can't defend herself from. Its the same shit I heard from Ron Paul supporters, and they even continued on saying he was owning face after his debate performances failed to move the needle.

 

[Damerman]

The 40+ year history of Democrats self-immolating in the presidential elections each time they sent up a far-left candidate.

What does past data have to do with the massive shift in conversation in the past 7 years?

Historical data is all we have, so thats why we use... But sometimes it can be very irrelevant.

 

[Damerman]

I don't even know where people get this delusional belief that Bernie Sanders is going to completely own the debates and be this monster asskicker that Hilary can't defend herself from. Its the same shit I heard from Ron Paul supporters, and they even continued on saying he was owning face after his debate performances failed to move the needle.

Because bernie is a great speaker with a very relavent and consistent platform and clinton is the very opposite.

And what does ron paul have to do with bernie sanders?

 

[B-Dubs]

Nope, I addressed you comment about there not needing to be as many debates with just two serious candidates, than you go on a tirade how you were tired of debates last cycle.
Last cycle there were 26 debates, this cycle it's 6. Also the Establishment has put in rules that if any of the candidates debate outside of these 6 dates, they would be barred taking part in any of the DNC organized debates.

But sure call me a straw man.



Nope my hyperbole is not much worse than someone who equates 26 Debates as being too much and 6 to be just enough. Like people have pointed out it's pretty clear what the DNC is doing and why they are doing it.

Yes because thinking that the number of debates should be proportional to the number of candidates running is complete madness and I may as well be for a coronation.

Because bernie is a great speaker with a very relavent and consistent platform and clinton is the very opposite.

Yes, but this won't necessarily win him the support among minorities that he needs to win the nomination.

 

[Chariot]

The fact is unless Bernie is able to speak better on issues of race, and not just how they relate to economic issues, we could have 100 debates and nothing will change. If Bernie wants to win he needs to learn to speak better on race, he needs to steal African-American and Hispanic support from Hillary and he won't do that with his current messaging.

O'Malley wants a debate sooner because he's afraid he won't have the money to last until October because no one knows he's even running.

He already had more than just economic reasons for racism in his programm, although he has a big focus on that since it's connect to his overall campaign. You should watch his longer speeches, he wants actual accountability for police officers who kill people, especially of course people of colour. He wants to change the prison system that disadvatages people of colour. Try this interview for a quick fix. But you really should watch a longer speech to get more aspects of Sanders views and proposed solutions on racism.

 

[zou]

Very funny. You can see who supports what when they advocate for trillions of unfettered money pumped into financial institutions who caused the crash themselves.

That's ok, your candidate is on the same side of the issue as libertarians and right-wing nuts.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't even know where people get this delusional belief that Bernie Sanders is going to completely own the debates and be this monster asskicker that Hilary can't defend herself from. Its the same shit I heard from Ron Paul supporters, and they even continued on saying he was owning face after his debate performances failed to move the needle.

Bernie has his own record to defend himself on. Hillary can get hit hundreds of times with her own credentials just based off of her donors and previous positions alone.

And Ron Paul is complete oppose of Bernie Sanders in 99% of policy measures, his actual intended policies by and large are things a majority of people support, that somehow Hillary just as election time rolled up decided she wanted to follow too to pander to the liberal voting bloc.

 

[Dude Abides]

Based posting language and familiarity with the US political system I'm beginning to wonder how many of the Bernie diehards ITT are even from the US.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter has a higher favorability rating than Bernie Sanders.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/08/18/rel8b.-.democrats.2016.pdf

Not to mention their 54% favorability rating among people of color. But sure, they're irrelevant. Who needs to persuade people of color anyway? Not Bernie, apparently!

We're still early in the primary cycle and there's still a debate on the horizon. People are obviously more favorable on a non-defined decentralized movement fighting for civil rights than an old white guy running for President. This playing with numbers is ridiculous.

You are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Yes, Hollywood has serious racism and sexism issues having to do with propping up the world's kyriarchy. But if you think they aren't incredibly liberal and a constant force for liberalism, you have apparently not watched a television show or movie in the last fifty years. Or, you know, looked at voting records

24, American Sniper, Clint Eastwood's entire career, I could go on and on and on.

You are missing the point. It's not a question of I'm convinced, you're convinced, it's a question on which there's evidence.

And you're twisting evidence in this post to try and argue a point with such a weak foundation I can't take this statement seriously.

The Democratic Party wants, very very badly, to win elections. It's like the only reason they exist. They have the resources to round up groups of voters, run exhaustive tests, and find out exactly how badly the Republican attack ads against Hillary will hurt her. They have certainly already done so.

If they found that those ads would destroy her in the general? She wouldn't be the presumptive nominee. All that party power would've turned towards blocking Hillary out of the nomination instead of ushering her in. That is literally what that party power is for. On the GOP side, that's why Chris Christie's presidential campaign ended in 2013 (although he apparently didn't get the call).

As if she wasn't the shoe-in during the 2008 primary. Again, nobody's denying she's a powerful politician, but that only gets you so far in a general election, especially going up against the Republican Hate Machine. Considering how lucky they've gotten with Obama, and how badly they fucked up the midterms and the 2 elections before him, you're making a terrible argument here.

Instead every single Democrat who's endorsed anybody has endorsed Hillary (except one guy, fine), all the major Democratic donors have lined up beside her, and all the party mouthpieces are trumpeting her narrative. You know what that means? It means that the party has done its research and thinks Hillary is electable and the GOP have no ammo.

And this mindset has won just how many Presidential elections again? Just Obama, who everyone pretty much agrees was a once in a lifetime candidiate? Alright then.

I feel like you're plugging your ears here. One more time: there are specifics that the GOP will use to attack Bernie. We do not know what they are yet. They are hiding in his past speeches, policy positions, college records, friends and relatives, everything Bernie Sanders has ever done. You can't just shrug them off like they don't exist just because you don't know what they are unless you've just gotten back from doing six months of oppo research on him.

Looking at his history and record (fighting for civil rights, being a career politician) it's a pretty safe bet they won't find much if anything.

I don't know what they are either! But there's going to be something. I prefer the candidate for whom I already know what they are and I know that the party knows they won't matter.

And the party's spent the past 15 years, hell ever since letting Reagan get elected, being a colossal machine of fuckups.

This is more of this "both parties are the same" stuff. I don't have time for it. If you don't know the difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, I suggest you educate yourself.

Oh bull fucking shit. You and I both know that the Republicans have dragged the Democrats to the Right by the ear - Clinton's proposed college plan has its roots in fucking No Child Left Behind, for god's sake! You can't sit there with that bullshit condescending tone and expect to be taken seriously here.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Bernie has his own record to defend himself on. Hillary can get hit hundreds of times with her own credentials just based off of her donors and previous positions alone.

And Ron Paul is complete oppose of Bernie Sanders in 99% of policy measures, his actual intended policies by and large are things a majority of people support, that somehow Hillary just as election time rolled up decided she wanted to follow too to pander to the liberal voting bloc.

I for one can't wait for him to explain exactly what he's talking about with breaking up the banks.

Hint: nobody does this kind of shit at a debate.

 

[Chariot]

Based posting language and familiarity with the US political system I'm beginning to wonder how many of the Bernie diehards ITT are even from the US.

Valid, I am from Germany and if you don't want him, we just make him King of Europe. Was missing Old Fritz anyways.

 

[Damerman]

Very funny. You can see who supports what when they advocate for trillions of unfettered money pumped into financial institutions who caused the crash themselves.

Bernie opposed TARP because that bill gave the banks no rules or even any sort of accountability measures from the FED on what they would do to prevent another collapse like the one they JUST caused. If one thinks that just shoveling money at the banks with no restrictions is helping the people, i can see why people are in such a rush to protect certain interests.

I don't see why there are so many corporate defenders. You people, unless you are rich aren't someone who gains from banks gaming the system and seeking profit above our own country's well being. Hell even if you are rich its a reckless idea. Why do you rush to their defense as if you are their cheerleader, as if they are someone you know personally?

They are too powerful a conglomerate and their concentrated power must be broken down. Its that simple

The financial system isn't a bandade that you can just rip off. Too big to fail litterally means too big to fail, countless companies, small or large, rely on these banks for lines of credit to keep things moving... Cash flow they need to rotate inventory, pay employees and a bunch of other shit to stay afloat.

You need a slow and steady approach to dismantling the swollen banking system in america.

Bernie voting against TARP cant be seen as wrong though, because its likely that he was lookong for an alternative.

 

[Days like these...]

I don't even know where people get this delusional belief that Bernie Sanders is going to completely own the debates and be this monster asskicker that Hilary can't defend herself from. Its the same shit I heard from Ron Paul supporters, and they even continued on saying he was owning face after his debate performances failed to move the needle.

Then why is the dnc threatening to sanction candidates if they participate in unsanctioned debates?

 

[Fenderputty]

Nope my hyperbole is not much worse than someone who equates 26 Debates as being too much and 6 to be just enough. Like people have pointed out it's pretty clear what the DNC is doing and why they are doing it.

That has nothing to do with the hyperbolic strawman you made. Nowhere did he say all the debates are useless and never implied he's for some monarchy.

26 IS too much. 6 is probably not enough. He probably wouldn't disagree with that position. Though it's not laced with hyperbole/.

 

[noshten]

I don't even know where people get this delusional belief that Bernie Sanders is going to completely own the debates and be this monster asskicker that Hilary can't defend herself from. Its the same shit I heard from Ron Paul supporters, and they even continued on saying he was owning face after his debate performances failed to move the needle.

Because bernie is a great speaker with a very relavent and consistent platform and clinton is the very opposite.

And what does ron paul have to do with bernie sanders?

It's not even about Bernie Sanders, I believe that the more you put Clinton center forward answering the tough questions the less likely she is to win the nomination. Whether it's Bernie or someone else asking those tough question is immaterial. DNC pretty much wanted a free ride for Clinton until the Primaries, because they already have the blue print from the last election - hence all these limitations that they are placing in order for no alternative to come up. She cannot galvanize youth/independent/emotional voters because she is comes off like worse whenever she has to defend any position she has which is unpopular or any action which is deemed unpopular.
She is no Bill that's for sure - hence her being the DNC's darling is counter productive they could have found a much stronger candidate but instead went with something which didn't work before much like Republicans getting behind Romney last election.

 

[Inuhanyou]

That's ok, your candidate is on the same side of the issue as libertarians and right-wing nuts.

Sure, when their paths intersect, even if their goals arent the same. I don't think anyone should run away from good ideas just based on name calling.

For example,

Bernie wanted an audit of the FED to get transparency from what they gave the banks unconditionally, and Ron Paul wanted an audit of the FED to prove the government was evil and should not be in charge of handling the people's money. Their paths aligned for a second, even if their causes were completely different.

Isn't that what people say a "socialist far left nut" can't do? Work across the isle to get things done? Lol.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Then why is the dnc threatening to sanction candidates if they participate in unsanctioned debates?

If the DNC has this supposed vendetta against Bernie Sanders don't you think they would have pointed out by now that Bernie Sanders isn't even a fucken Democrat

 

[B-Dubs]

If the DNC has this supposed vendetta against Bernie Sanders don't you think they would have pointed out by now that Bernie Sanders isn't even a fucken Democrat

They wouldn't have even let him run in the primary if they had a thing against him!

 

[Kusagari]

The Sanders/Paul comparisons are so tired. Bernie is in lockstep with the Democratic base on the vast majority of issues. Ron Paul differed from mainstream Republicans on a billion issues.

 

[Days like these...]

Based posting language and familiarity with the US political system I'm beginning to wonder how many of the Bernie diehards ITT are even from the US.

Seriously? I'm Latino from Texas.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The Sanders/Paul comparisons are so tired. Bernie is in lockstep with the Democratic base on a vast majority of issues. Ron Paul differed from mainstream Republicans on a billion issues.

Too bad practically the entire Democratic party that he's in lockstep with endorses Clinton, eh?

The comparison isn't even between the two people as politicians. Its the familiar rhetoric you hear from supporters about how they're going to just buck the trend of every election from the past century somehow someway through principles and morals or whatever.

 

[Dude Abides]

Seriously? I'm Latino from Texas.

I didn't say all of you.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I think the tears this time are going to be even better than hillaryis44 lol.

 

[Days like these...]

If the DNC has this supposed vendetta against Bernie Sanders don't you think they would have pointed out by now that Bernie Sanders isn't even a fucken Democrat

I never mentioned a vendetta. The dnc has set the rules. Now care to answer the question?

 

[Maledict]

It's not even about Bernie Sanders, I believe that the more you put Clinton center forward answering the tough questions the less likely she is to win the nomination. Whether it's Bernie or someone else asking those tough question is immaterial. DNC pretty much wanted a free ride for Clinton until the Primaries, because they already have the blue print from the last election - hence all these limitations that they are placing in order for no alternative to come up. She cannot galvanize youth/independent/emotional voters because she is comes off like worse whenever she has to defend any position she has which is unpopular or any action which is deemed unpopular.
She is no Bill that's for sure - hence her being the DNC's darling is counter productive they could have found a much stronger candidate but instead went with something which didn't work before much like Republicans getting behind Romney last election.

You're ignoring how 2008 went down then, and in particular how the debates went down. Clinton is *good* at this stuff - she's extremely smart, well practised and capable. she made Obama look weak and lacking in substance - and Bernie doens't have Obama's other skills to fall back on.

And in terms of galvanising youth, I think you would be hugely surprised. I am really perplexed by why Bernie Sander's supporters seem determined to ignore both her past, her performance last time around and her stances. The idea that she's the democrat equivalent of Romney is laughably dumb and seems to be handwaving away the last 30 years whilst shouting "CORPORATE SHILL" as loudly as possible whilst hoping nobody notices.

 

[Fenderputty]

The Sanders/Paul comparisons are so tired. Bernie is in lockstep with the Democratic base on the vast majority of issues. Ron Paul differed from mainstream Republicans on a billion issues.

For me, at least, the comparison has more to do with his followers and their actions rather than the candidates themselves.

And in terms of galvanising youth, I think you would be hugely surprised. I am really perplexed by why Bernie Sander's supporters seem determined to ignore both her past, her performance last time around and her stances. The idea that she's the democrat equivalent of Romney is laughably dumb and seems to be handwaving away the last 30 years whilst shouting "CORPORATE SHILL" as loudly as possible whilst hoping nobody notices.

Pretty much ...

 

[Angry Grimace]

I never mentioned a vendetta. The dnc has set the rules. Now care to answer the question?

Because the party wants to set the agenda, the rules and the participants to control the party message. Its not complicated in the least.

 

[Inuhanyou]

The financial system isn't a bandade that you can just rip off. Too big to fail litterally means too big to fail, countless companies, small or large, rely on these banks for lines of credit to keep things moving... Cash flow they need to rotate inventory, pay employees and a bunch of other shit to stay afloat.

You need a slow and steady approach to dismantling the swollen banking system in america.

Bernie voting against TARP cant be seen as wrong though, because its likely that he was lookong for an alternative.

Bernie,(and me neither for that matter) has never said that it would be an immediate or quick process. But we need to start holding them accountable and that's his entire point. First he would start with punishing their reckless derivative schemes through heavy fines and other actions, and then would slowly dismantle their power bloc.

That slow and steady pace is atleast putting us on the correct course. Its a whole lot better than the cheerleading we have going on now, where nobody will lift a finger to them as long as they get all their money from them. And Hillary is the exact embodiment of that system, forget the conservatives for a second.

People actually think Hillary would not go back on her SC rhetoric when it comes time for people to call her out on that, after her ties and connections?

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Because bernie is a great speaker with a very relavent and consistent platform and clinton is the very opposite.

And what does ron paul have to do with bernie sanders?

Well, Bernie Sanders did introduce Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill to the Senate.

 

[rokkerkory]

Go BERNIE!

 

[Kusagari]

For me, at least, the comparison has more to do with his followers and their actions rather than the candidates themselves.

It just always seems to be a way for people to paint him as this fringe candidate that only millennials on the Internet would support.

I don't think Bernie will win the nomination but it just feels like a way to constantly downplay a guy who has consistently been going up in polls as more and more people are introduced to him.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Very funny. You can see who supports what when they advocate for trillions of unfettered money pumped into financial institutions who caused the crash themselves.

Bernie opposed TARP because that bill gave the banks no rules or even any sort of accountability measures from the FED on what they would do to prevent another collapse like the one they JUST caused. If one thinks that just shoveling money at the banks with no restrictions is helping the people, i can see why people are in such a rush to protect certain interests.

I don't see why there are so many corporate defenders. You people, unless you are rich aren't someone who gains from banks gaming the system and seeking profit above our own country's well being. Hell even if you are rich its a reckless idea. Why do you rush to their defense as if you are their cheerleader, as if they are someone you know personally?

They are too powerful a conglomerate and their concentrated power must be broken down. Its that simple

Because dismantling the banking system wholesale is completely impractical in pretty much every way? "Too Big To Exist" isn't a policy position. Its throwaway populist rhetoric that doesn't answer what we will replace the current system with, how you would set a limit on how big a bank would be, how we would replace the functions that currently are performed by the largest banks, etc.

It just always seems to be a way for people to paint him as this fringe candidate that only millennials on the Internet would support.

I don't think Bernie will win the nomination but it just feels like a way to constantly downplay a guy who has consistently been going up in polls as more and more people are introduced to him.

Have you looked at Bernie's demographics?

 

[Damerman]

Well, Bernie Sanders did introduce Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill to the Senate.

Their motives for this audit, as mentioned earlier, could not be more different. They are litterally polar opposites in the political spectrum.

 

[boiled goose]

Sanders vote on TARP alone should disqualify him from office. Even Bush was on the right side of it.

Tarp was disastrous in how it was done. The bailout might have been necessary but all it did was socialize the losses while privatizing the gains.

The banks should have been bailed out but then nationalized and then broken up.

Also more criminal charges had to be pressed.

This is when too big to fail and too big to prosecute became a thing.

It was fucking disastrous.

 

[pigeon]

As if she wasn't the shoe-in during the 2008 primary. Again, nobody's denying she's a powerful politician, but that only gets you so far in a general election, especially going up against the Republican Hate Machine. Considering how lucky they've gotten with Obama, and how badly they fucked up the midterms and the 2 elections before him, you're making a terrible argument here.

And this mindset has won just how many Presidential elections again? Just Obama, who everyone pretty much agrees was a once in a lifetime candidiate? Alright then.

Looking at his history and record (fighting for civil rights, being a career politician) it's a pretty safe bet they won't find much if anything.

And the party's spent the past 15 years, hell ever since letting Reagan get elected, being a colossal machine of fuckups.

All right. Your argument is that you know more about how elections will play out than me and the entire Democratic Party, because you're just pretty sure. Must be nice!

Oh bull fucking shit. You and I both know that the Republicans have dragged the Democrats to the Right by the ear - Clinton's proposed college plan has its roots in fucking No Child Left Behind, for god's sake! You can't sit there with that bullshit condescending tone and expect to be taken seriously here.

If you have specific critiques of Hillary's policy proposals and why you think they're too right-wing, I'm happy to debate them. If all you've got is "Hillary's a Republican," you're wasting my time.

 

[DarkFlow]

Bernie is fucked. People would rather vote for a muslim then a socialist. Let that sink in for a minute.

 

[Inuhanyou]

^ If appearances and scary sounding names that take two seconds to research are literally the ONLY things that matter to America, then yes, we do deserve to be fucked. Cause that is just stupid as shit.

Tarp was disastrous in how it was done. The bailout might have been necessary but all it did was socialize the losses while privatizing the gains.

The banks should have been bailed out but then nationalized and then broken up.

Also more criminal charges had to be pressed.

This is when too big to fail and too big to prosecute became a thing.

It was fucking disastrous.

Basically. There was literally ZERO accountability from anyone. Literally zero people were held accountable in those hedge fund groups, and zero institutions were prosecuted for their roles in the collapse.

Hell, many of them are still going strong right now even more so then back then, with their hands STILL IN THE POCKETS OF THE POLITICIANS, even more so than before the crash! Its ridiculous!

And there we have the Clintons right in the middle, with their actions at the end being a major cause of the landslide of deregulation of the private industry and our current trajectory.

 

[Maledict]

As if she wasn't the shoe-in during the 2008 primary. Again, nobody's denying she's a powerful politician, but that only gets you so far in a general election, especially going up against the Republican Hate Machine. Considering how lucky they've gotten with Obama, and how badly they fucked up the midterms and the 2 elections before him, you're making a terrible argument here.

She wasn't. She by no means had the democratic party behind her - Harry Reid pushed Obama to won! Clinton was the favourite but the party was deeply, deeply divided on her - in particular the donar base.

I think a lot of people are really misremembering the 2008 primaries.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Tarp was disastrous in how it was done. The bailout might have been necessary but all it did was socialize the losses while privatizing the gains.

The banks should have been bailed out but then nationalized and then broken up.

Also more criminal charges had to be pressed.

This is when too big to fail and too big to prosecute became a thing.

It was fucking disastrous.

Vox did a piece with Timothy Geithner; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRP2Vw9ix-s

He basically says some interesting things about why nobody was charged and brought to trial. And he says, that it was thanks to the centralization of the financial institutions that allowed them to recover.
His claims are in contrast to what Bernie wants to do. Bernie has said he wants to break up the institutions, but under Geithners logic- Those institutions is what allowed the US to get relatively unscathed out of a crisis that could have been a lot worse. And he cites panic as one of the big reasons for this, calling it a paradox.
But I am not entirely sure I believe him. I still think those heads of those banks and hedgefunds should have been put on trial after the worst was over. If Bradley Manning is allowed to rut in a prison- for doing the right thing, they should be justful enough to lay down the hammer on these people.
It doesn't seem like justice to me at all!

To me, the 3 things that hurts obamas legacy; his treatment of whistleblowers, his inability to do something about the corruption on washington - He ran on this on his campaign trail, and finally drone strikes.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think the tears this time are going to be even better than hillaryis44 lol.

bernieis45? I could definitely see that.

Bernie is no Obama. Obama could end the Democratic Primary tomorrow if he wanted to by endorsing Clinton but he won't for obvious reasons.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

^ If appearances and scary sounding names that take two seconds to research are literally the ONLY things that matter to America, then yes, we do deserve to be fucked. Cause that is just stupid as shit.



Basically. There was literally ZERO accountability from anyone. Literally zero people were held accountable in those hedge fund groups, and zero institutions were prosecuted for their roles in the collapse.

Hell, many of them are still going strong right now even more so then back then, with their hands STILL IN THE POCKETS OF THE POLITICIANS, even more so than before the crash! Its ridiculous!

And there we have the Clintons right in the middle, with their actions at the end being a major cause of the landslide of deregulation of the private industry and our current trajectory.

Tarp was disastrous in how it was done. The bailout might have been necessary but all it did was socialize the losses while privatizing the gains.

The banks should have been bailed out but then nationalized and then broken up.

Also more criminal charges had to be pressed.

This is when too big to fail and too big to prosecute became a thing.

It was fucking disastrous.

You guys do realize the government made the money back with interest right?

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $57.3B profit as of Aug. 12, 2015.

 

[User 463088]

^ If appearances and scary sounding names that take two seconds to research are literally the ONLY things that matter to America, then yes, we do deserve to be fucked. Cause that is just stupid as shit.

Dear heavens.

There are quite a few polls, the one posted is from a few weeks ago, that shows the American populace is not comfortable voting for a socialist. You can try to explain it away by saying "If people just got it...they'd think differently." It hasn't happened.

I don't think you truly realize how many low information voters are out there. It may tick you off that they exist, but they still do. To write them off, as simply lazy or afraid of research, is a big part of the problem with some (not saying you but in general) of Bernie's supporters.

The Socialist label is a problem. Period. Hands down. It's a knock against him. It would be used against him in a general election. It would have weight because it is actually true in his case.

You don't get to erase generations of thinking about something by simply hoping people go online and research what it means. Most people can't be assed to vote, but these independent swing voters are going to magically take the time to research something that they've been conditioned to believe is anti-American because Bernie tells them to?

That's now how it works. That's now how any of this works.

The voting population is often stupid. We elected Bush TWICE. You cannot put your faith in uninformed voters, spin around three times and hope it works out. That's not how you win an election. That's now how you govern.

 

[Kusagari]

Have you looked at Bernie's demographics?

His demographics at the moment are white, not necessarily young people. Just looking at the CNN Poll he's down 49-21 to Hillary among voters over 50, which isn't a drastic difference from the overall result.

 

[theignoramus]

Is the hatred for socialism a residue of Cold War propaganda or is it just fundamentally clashing with the American belief in "individual responsibility"?
(Never mind that that philosophy seldom applies to powerful corporate criminals in the US)

 

[Valhelm]

I know NeoGAF loves Bernie Sanders, but does this man really have a chance at being President if he wins the primary? He seems to lean to the far left and we all know how much of a chance those who lean to the far right have.

He has a significant change in the general, especially if paired up against a dark horse not named Jeb Bush. The primary will be significantly more difficult than the general election could be.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

What does past data have to do with the massive shift in conversation in the past 7 years?

Historical data is all we have, so thats why we use... But sometimes it can be very irrelevant.

The conversation is in an echo chamber.

The person from either party that can speak to the moderates will be President.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

When you look at the TARP as a whole and the economy now as opposed to 2008. I think voting against it was nearly a disaster. It just shows a willing to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of perfection or purity while jeopardizing everything.

 

[Angry Grimace]

She wasn't. She by no means had the democratic party behind her - Harry Reid pushed Obama to won! Clinton was the favourite but the party was deeply, deeply divided on her - in particular the donar base.

I think a lot of people are really misremembering the 2008 primaries.

People also consistently undervalue the fact that Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who was a far superior candidate to Sanders in every real way.