Support NeoGAF

[Valhelm]

I'm skeptical.

Must have missed something - why is GAF (majority of posts here) against Clinton? I thought she was the leader in presidental race (I'm from Europe BTW).

NeoGaf is the most pro-Hillary website I frequent, actually. Many on the American left are dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton's generally pro-Wall Street attitudes and frequently shifting political positions. She represents the centrist streak of the Democratic party that would be considered right-wing in many European countries. Hillary Clinton doesn't promise any substantial change, and is mostly popular due to her name recognition and impressive tenure in Washington.

 

[kirblar]

Must have missed something - why is GAF (majority of posts here) against Clinton? I thought she was the leader in presidental race (I'm from Europe BTW).

Bernie's doing very well with one specific demographic in the US- white males.

 

[dramatis]

Must have missed something - why is GAF (majority of posts here) against Clinton? I thought she was the leader in presidental race (I'm from Europe BTW).

There is strong Bernie Sanders support amongst GAF population. Unfortunately since he is behind in the polls, Bernie supporters resort to negative attacks on Hillary while trying to present Bernie as the better candidate. The approach is twofold, but also creates the effect that Bernie supporters are obsessed with tearing down Hillary Clinton.

GAF itself is probably more divided over politics than we can see.

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

Honestly, I think it's better just to examine her plan when it's released in detail. Trying to satisfy the excited left right now is akin to satisfying the Tea Party, which is to say nothing can satisfy them. They've already set their minds on thinking of Hillary as a liar, unlikeable, etc.

 

[Blader]

I don't know why every article makes Sanders sound like such a big threat when he's not. The real threats are Biden if he chooses to run and her image with general election swing voters,

Also, this thread is off to a beautiful start.

Because "Out-of-nowhere progressive surges in polls!" is a more attention-grabbing story than "Hilary still pretty much guaranteed to win nomination."

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Until people start going to jail over these things, more fines won't stop them.

They should use those taxes to beef up the teams that will prosecute the people that perpetrate the crimes they are talking about.

 

[Valhelm]

Until people start going to jail over these things, more fines won't stop them.

They should use those taxes to beef up the teams that will prosecute the people that perpetrate the crimes they are talking about.

Hillary Clinton is one of the people that progressive taxation would affect. It ain't happening.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Must have missed something - why is GAF (majority of posts here) against Clinton? I thought she was the leader in presidental race (I'm from Europe BTW).

Let's be clear, GAF is split down the middle for Hillary and Sanders, but Sanders is a relatively unknown, whereas even people in other countries know Clinton just by association, which has been by far her strongest card in this race.

Even though she's more well known that the competitor/s, she has certain issues that a portion of us don't feel like we see highlighted enough in regards to what she says she believes in for the elections.

She says she's for gay marriage, was against it until 2013
She says she's for TPP(even knowing that the bill was by default corporate lead as Sec of State) more than 40 times, until this summer.
She says she's in support of Keystone XL pipeline, until this year
She says absolutely nothing in regards to Wall Street, or Big Pharma, until a week or so ago(or yesterday in regards to Wall St).

Among other flip flops on others issues.

She was a Walmart excec in her early days and has more money and donations from private corporations and WallStreet for her campaign than a majority of candidates both Democratic or Republican while saying we 'need to get money out of politic", because other candidates have been saying 'we need to get money out of politic

Its safe to say people do have some reservations about the candidate. And having a fanbase due to having high profile previous associations should not exempt her from criticism on these issues.

Its more concerning because her closest competitor is a lot more consistent and has been talking about many of the same issues far longer and in far more detail than she has, until just now when she's decided that she should take those talking points for herself because she's running for President.

 

[kame-sennin]

 

[tarzanpuyol]

I am a liberal but I always find it amusing how little most people know of how Walls Street works, most of the stuff Bernie and Clinton are talking about does nothing to prevent or block the systematic abuse of the system. Also, we tend to look for a scapegoat in Wall Street when the things on main street do not look good, sure we have a large portion of our economy linked to the Wall Street, but our focus should be on workers.

Here is the deal, do I share the idea that people should be jailed for things such as insider trading and security swaps? of course. But everything reps and dems have done does nothing to help stagnating wage growth and gdp growth. We like to brag how the market bounced, but the market did not bounce due to growth, it bounced due to efficiencies and cost cutting.

But anyways just my 2 cents, from someone that is a liberal and doesnt agree with neither party in terms of wall street reform.

 

[jtb]

Let's be clear, GAF is split down the middle for Hillary and Sanders, but Sanders is a relatively unknown, whereas even people in other countries know Clinton just by association, which has been by far her strongest card in this race.

Even though she's more well known that the competitor/s, she has certain issues that a portion of us don't feel like we see highlighted enough in regards to what she says she believes in for the elections.

She says she's for gay marriage, was against it until 2013
She says she's for TPP(even knowing that the bill was by default corporate lead as Sec of State) more than 40 times, until this summer.
She says she's in support of Keystone XL pipeline, until this year
She says absolutely nothing in regards to Wall Street, or Big Pharma, until a week or so ago(or yesterday in regards to Wall St).

Among other flip flops on others issues.

She was a Walmart excec in her early days and has more money and donations from private corporations and WallStreet for her campaign than a majority of candidates both Democratic or Republican while saying we 'need to get money out of politic", because other candidates have been saying 'we need to get money out of politic

Its safe to say people do have some reservations about the candidate. And having a fanbase due to having high profile previous associations should not exempt her from criticism on these issues.

Its more concerning because her closest competitor is a lot more consistent and has been talking about many of the same issues far longer and in far more detail than she has, until just now when she's decided that she should take those talking points for herself because she's running for President.

Would you prefer she not reflect the will of her constituents? What an asinine, completely backwards complaint. Leave the ideological purity litmus bullshit to the Tea Partiers.

A politician changing their vote to better represent their constituents isn't a failure of politics—it's literally the point of a democracy.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

Why are you acting like Sanders supporter belong to a cult of personality? It's very condescending.

To speak for myself, there's nothing that she can do at this point to make me trust her more than I do Sanders. He's been on the right side of nearly every significant issue throughout his career, whereas Hillary has had to "grow" on many of those issues (and typically only once polling has proven that such growth is politically favorable). He doesn't accept corporate money and he doesn't run negative campaigns, whereas she does both. Everything about his career and this campaign has been about fighting against the forces that have slowly corrupted this country (rich people fucking over the middle class, corporate money in politics, divisive political discourse, etc.), whereas Hillary represents business as usual (that is, painfully slow, incremental change).

 

[dramatis]

Here is the deal, do I share the idea that people should be jailed for things such as insider trading and security swaps? of course. But everything reps and dems have done does nothing to help stagnating wage growth and gdp growth. We like to brag how the market bounced, but the market did not bounce due to growth, it bounced due to efficiencies and cost cutting.

But anyways just my 2 cents, from someone that is a liberal and doesnt agree with neither party in terms of wall street reform.

What do you think would make for effective Wall Street reform?

I think the proposals issued by the candidates attempt to address poor behavior on Wall Street, rather than behind all encompassing economic reforms. I don't think any of the candidates (except for maybe Ben Carson, who lost his brain somewhere) think that reforming Wall Street will magically fix the economy.

Why are you acting like Sanders supporter belong to a cult of personality? It's very condescending.

To speak for myself, there's nothing that she can do at this point to make me trust her more than I do Sanders. He's been on the right side of nearly every significant issue throughout his career, whereas Hillary has had to "grow" on many of those issues (and typically only once polling has proven that such growth is politically favorable). He doesn't accept corporate money and he doesn't run negative campaigns, whereas she does both. Everything about his career and this campaign has been about fighting against the forces that have slowly corrupted this country (rich people fucking over the middle class, corporate money in politics, divisive political discourse, etc.), whereas Hillary represents business as usual (that is, painfully slow, incremental change).

The problem with that thinking is that it makes it pointless for the leading candidate to address your issues, if you were never going to give him or her the chance in the first place. Hillary doesn't have to fish for your vote to be in the lead.

A government governing 300 million+ people has to move slow. Of course it's not ideal, because it's reality. It's also like you don't seem to realize that 47% of the country voted for Mitt Romney. Not everybody in the nation agrees with you, so implementing drastic changes makes you an actual dictator trampling over everyone else.

It's also silly to think that Bernie could move the government faster than "painfully slow, incremental change". The president has a lot of power, but more permanent changes come in the form of Congress. As if Bernie getting elected would mean government wouldn't be business as usual. That's what people thought in 2008.

 

[tarzanpuyol]

She says she's for gay marriage, was against it until 2013
She says she's for TPP(even knowing that the bill was by default corporate lead as Sec of State) more than 40 times, until this summer.
She says she's in support of Keystone XL pipeline, until this year
She says absolutely nothing in regards to Wall Street, or Big Pharma, until a week or so ago(or yesterday in regards to Wall St).

Among other flip flops on others issues.
.

From personal opinion, I attribute some of the changes to pragmatism.

Gay marriage, generational issue, up until 2010 the majority of people were against it.

TPP I dont like it, I think its a bad deal, I was born in El Salvador and right now the gov is getting sued by a mining company because permits were not issued, fucked up http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...-rim-lawsuit-el-salvador-mine-gold-free-trade

Everyone is talking now how gas is cheap, but people forget is because of the shale oil explosion. I see it 2 ways, shale gets us away from the middle east energy, in fact shale is relatively cleaner than middle east oil. So the Keystone is a must, its not even a question of being rep or dem imo.

In terms of Wall Street she is status quo, just like Sanders, Sanders offers the same populist break up the banks mentality, transaction tax again trivial, block wages for bank ceos (i disagree with this on principle), talks against the bailout but not the millions made by the fed in interest. There aint that much difference there.

 

[tarzanpuyol]

What do you think would make for effective Wall Street reform?
I think the proposals issued by the candidates attempt to address poor behavior on Wall Street, rather than behind all encompassing economic reforms. I don't think any of the candidates (except for maybe Ben Carson, who lost his brain somewhere) think that reforming Wall Street will magically fix the economy.

Tax reform for corporations
Similar to financial regulation, cap the big corps in terms of much debt they can take.
Fix the credit derivatives market
link long term gains to income not separate tax bracket.

some of the ideas

 

[noshten]

From personal opinion, I attribute some of the changes to pragmatism.

Gay marriage, generational issue, up until 2010 the majority of people were against it.

TPP I dont like it, I think its a bad deal, I was born in El Salvador and right now the gov is getting sued by a mining company because permits were not issued, fucked up http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...-rim-lawsuit-el-salvador-mine-gold-free-trade

Everyone is talking now how gas is cheap, but people forget is because of the shale oil explosion. I see it 2 ways, shale gets us away from the middle east energy, in fact shale is relatively cleaner than middle east oil. So the Keystone is a must, its not even a question of being rep or dem imo.

In terms of Wall Street she is status quo, just like Sanders, Sanders offers the same populist break up the banks mentality, transaction tax again trivial, block wages for bank ceos (i disagree with this on principle), talks against the bailout but not the millions made by the fed in interest. There aint that much difference there.

What happens if suddenly an issue we feel strongly about doesn't have widespread support?
My opinion is Clinton does a 180°

It's easy to govern looking for popular support, but sometimes you have to take measures which aren't widely popular based on your personal beliefs and not polling data. There is a difference between leading and following

 

[Nibiru]

Hillary is a compulsive liar. I mean most politicians will say whatever they have to to get elected but Hillary is the extreme case. She is a caricature of a slimy politician similar to a Bush. She is also very hawkish and despite what she says she has a history of practically being a neo-con.

I am pretty much a libertarian so a socialist like Bernie is very scary to me BUT Bernie has been consistent which shows that he has integrity and that imo is very cool. He is like the Ron Paul of the left and although I disagree with him on many things I also agree with him on things too. Over all I would support almost anyone over a Hillary or a Bush.

 

[tarzanpuyol]

What happens if suddenly an issue we feel strongly about doesn't have widespread support?
My opinion is Clinton does a 180°

It's easy to govern looking for popular support, but sometimes you have to take measures which aren't widely popular based on your personal beliefs and not polling data. There is a difference between leading and following

I rather have someone reflect popular opinion than go against it, anyways I do not see her as a person or any politician for that matter, I see them as messangers of popular change. I do not care if they personally agree or not, similar to Uruguay's Mujica if you know him

 

[tarzanpuyol]

What do you think would make for effective Wall Street reform?

I think the proposals issued by the candidates attempt to address poor behavior on Wall Street, rather than behind all encompassing economic reforms. I don't think any of the candidates (except for maybe Ben Carson, who lost his brain somewhere) think that reforming Wall Street will magically fix the economy.

agree with all ecompassing reform, politically dead at the moment, address behavior first.

 

[jtb]

Why are you acting like Sanders supporter belong to a cult of personality? It's very condescending.

To speak for myself, there's nothing that she can do at this point to make me trust her more than I do Sanders. He's been on the right side of nearly every significant issue throughout his career, whereas Hillary has had to "grow" on many of those issues (and typically only once polling has proven that such growth is politically favorable). He doesn't accept corporate money and he doesn't run negative campaigns, whereas she does both. Everything about his career and this campaign has been about fighting against the forces that have slowly corrupted this country (rich people fucking over the middle class, corporate money in politics, divisive political discourse, etc.), whereas Hillary represents business as usual (that is, painfully slow, incremental change).

Winning counts. Being able to pass legislation counts. They count a hell of a more than brownie points for being "right" all your life. How would Bernie's presidency be anything other than "painfully slow, incremental" change with a constitution designed for painfully slow, incremental change and a congress that is painfully slow and comically ineffective?

 

[And_Gignac]

Is really telling that she is doing all this just before the debate. She really doesnt want to give Sanders the chance to paint her as "corporativistic".

All this flip floping is making her look like Democrat´s Romney.

Check out this thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1077251

There are a bunch of very vocal Hillary supporters here, though.

kii you are right. They are louder than Sanderistas, but fewer.

 

[tarzanpuyol]

Winning counts. Being able to pass legislation counts. They count a hell of a more than brownie points for being "right" all your life. How would Bernie's presidency be anything other than "painfully slow, incremental" change with a constitution designed for painfully slow, incremental change and a congress that is painfully slow and comically ineffective?

but you dont get it, deep inside he has been right. He just cannot do anything about it, but he is right :|

 

[ksan]

I am a liberal but I always find it amusing how little most people know of how Walls Street works, most of the stuff Bernie and Clinton are talking about does nothing to prevent or block the systematic abuse of the system. Also, we tend to look for a scapegoat in Wall Street when the things on main street do not look good, sure we have a large portion of our economy linked to the Wall Street, but our focus should be on workers.

Here is the deal, do I share the idea that people should be jailed for things such as insider trading and security swaps? of course. But everything reps and dems have done does nothing to help stagnating wage growth and gdp growth. We like to brag how the market bounced, but the market did not bounce due to growth, it bounced due to efficiencies and cost cutting.

But anyways just my 2 cents, from someone that is a liberal and doesnt agree with neither party in terms of wall street reform.

¿qué?

 

[andycapps]

This seems like typical Clinton holding a political finger in a wind to see which way it's blowing and trying to reposition yourself, but still keeping all your options open.

 

[Patriots7]

Yay, even more unnecessary regulation!

 

[Inuhanyou]

Would you prefer she not reflect the will of her constituents? What an asinine, completely backwards complaint. Leave the ideological purity litmus bullshit to the Tea Partiers.

A politician changing their vote to better represent their constituents isn't a failure of politics—it's literally the point of a democracy.

No, i'm saying we need people who actually will follow through what they believe in for the direction of this country instead of people who don't believe in anything unless those words and donations win them votes, and then drop it at the first sign of victory while giving excuses.

Just because someone says something doesn't mean they believe it.

Obama can say "i support clean energy" while approving hundreds of deep water drilling sites, many in critical areas that should not be drilled in, and approving the keystone XL which benefit the handlers of said oil more than it does the country its being taken from and transported around.

Obama can say "i am for common sense free trade" while pushing in the background a bill that has almost nothing to do with tariffs and free trade, and more to do with deregulating corporate operations across border lines.

Guess what? Hillary was in support of both those measures wholeheartedly until about a week or so ago until the bad press rolled in and the debates got closer.

Do you actually support candidates like that?

 

[Buddha Beam]

I just can't bring myself to believe her.

 

[Fenderputty]

Why are you acting like Sanders supporter belong to a cult of personality? It's very condescending.

To speak for myself, there's nothing that she can do at this point to make me trust her more than I do Sanders.

The fact that you typed this without noticing any irony is amazing.

 

[kame-sennin]

I guess this is sort of what a lot of progressives were at least hoping for as she's had to respond to some of the issues Bernie is layout out that he wants to fix. I guess we'll just see where this goes.

Bernie's having a great effect here, no doubt, but this still sounds like a lot of hot air. Need specifics!

I mean...is Bernie pushing her to take more explicit positions not what people wanted?

Sanders' function is to make Clinton into a more palatable candidate.

“So,” he said of Sanders, “How serious is he? He makes Clinton a better phony candidate. She is going to have to agree with him on a number of things. She is going to have to be more anti-Wall Street to fend him off and neutralize him. We know it is bullshit. She will betray us once she becomes president. He is making her more likely to win. And by April he is done. Then he fades away.”​

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/make_the_rich_panic_20150503

 

[genjiZERO]

Fake empty promises. Still voting Green Hilldog.

 

[Cagey]

Jail time for individuals is an overrated revenge-driven red herring that won't mean anything for deterrence in the future. These are corporations, large institutions, and we're still intent on pursuing individual people?

You want change? Revoke bank charters. Revoke HSBC's charter to operate in the United States for laundering Sinaloa cartel money and money tied to terrorism in the Middle East. Who gives a shit if their CEO does 5 years in jail when HSBC gets to keep chugging along.

"Why not both?" Both would be great but there's not likely political capital for both.

 

[noshten]

I rather have someone reflect popular opinion than go against it, anyways I do not see her as a person or any politician for that matter, I see them as messangers of popular change. I do not care if they personally agree or not, similar to Uruguay's Mujica if you know him

It's all about personal preferences on this.
You prefer to wait for the right climate for certain type of changes
While I'd prefer even unpopular policies to be carried through by the candidate I give a mandate to.
If I side with a person, I always side with him on issues we don't agree with - since it's impossible to agree with a candidate on everything.

 

[B-Dubs]

“So,” he said of Sanders, “How serious is he? He makes Clinton a better phony candidate. She is going to have to agree with him on a number of things. She is going to have to be more anti-Wall Street to fend him off and neutralize him. We know it is bullshit. She will betray us once she becomes president. He is making her more likely to win. And by April he is done. Then he fades away.”​

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/make_the_rich_panic_20150503

This ignores the fact that politicians do in fact try to keep all the promises they make while campaigning. There was a fairly comprehensive study of the world's leading democracies, that included the US, UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavian nations and more, that found politicians do try and keep these promises. Why? Because they want to be reelected. It's in their best interests to keep these promises.

 

[Black Mamba]

Timmy is part of the problem, same with Bernanke. Its not an excuse, its an attempt to shield his friends from cover. They are both Wall Street guys, like Greenspan before them.

Bernanke is a wall street guy? How so? Dude came out of Academia to join the Fed. He was the head economics professor at Yale, not a banker. He has no ties to Wall Steeet. He also just talked about how he thought more bankers should be in prison right now.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ail-great-recession-federal-reserve/72959402/

 

[Fenderputty]

This ignores the fact that politicians do in fact try to keep all the promises they make while campaigning. There was a fairly comprehensive study of the world's leading democracies, that included the US, UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavian nations and more, that found politicians do try and keep these promises. Why? Because they want to be reelected. It's in their best interests to keep these promises.

This study has been mentioned sooooooooooooooooooo many times to deaf bernie stan ears.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

The fact that you typed this without noticing any irony is amazing.

What irony? I've compared their records and chosen who to trust. You're implying that I'm somehow blinded by charisma or propaganda or something, which again, is very condescending.

Winning counts. Being able to pass legislation counts. They count a hell of a more than brownie points for being "right" all your life. How would Bernie's presidency be anything other than "painfully slow, incremental" change with a constitution designed for painfully slow, incremental change and a congress that is painfully slow and comically ineffective?

In what ways do you think that Hillary would be more effective against this gridlock than Bernie? Willingness to compromise, or more?

If Bernie wins the primary it will be largely thanks to successfully building a massive network of grassroots volunteers. He's already doing that, faster than Obama did. His long-term plan to enact the changes he's campaigning on is to motivate that network of volunteers to continue participating in this democracy long-term, meaning voting in midterm elections at a scale that doesn't usually happen and large-scale protests when Congress throws a shit fit over Berniecare. Is that laughable? That's up to you.

 

[Skellig Gra]

ok ok ok

Issue: Hillary isn't left enough for some people

Solution: Hillary unveil Wall Street regulations that will be of greater significance than the repealed Glass-Steagall so that encompasses more organizations and institutions that effect our economy.

Result: People who said Hillary isn't left enough say Hillary is faking it and don't believe her because of reasons.

Can someone who things Hillary is a complete fake and isn't liberal enough explain what she would have to do, outside of bowing down to Sanders and proclaiming he is the one true god, to win over and gain trust that she's actually a liberal?

Not take shit tons of money from banks.

 

[B-Dubs]

This study has been mentioned sooooooooooooooooooo many times to deaf bernie stan ears.

It's not just one study though, there's been a couple of them over the years. All of them have had the same result: politicians will, at the very least, give a good faith effort in trying to keep campaign promises. Like 3 different studies show this.

 

[spekkeh]

Would you prefer she not reflect the will of her constituents? What an asinine, completely backwards complaint. Leave the ideological purity litmus bullshit to the Tea Partiers.

A politician changing their vote to better represent their constituents isn't a failure of politics—it's literally the point of a democracy.

In a representative democracy you choose the person you think is most capable/trustworthy of the process of government and legislature. Taking informed decisions from your ethical outlook. This may sometimes mean taking decisions that you would not make, at least from your position of uninformedness. If the candidate just flops to the polls you're better off with a direct democracy.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Bernanke is a wall street guy? How so? Dude came out of Academia to join the Fed. He was the head economics professor at Yale, not a banker. He has no ties to Wall Steeet. He also just talked about how he thought more bankers should be in prison right now.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ail-great-recession-federal-reserve/72959402/

I'm glad he's talking about it now, but like Greenspan who only said "he was wrong" after he left the job, i consider him just as much culpable as Timmy, having been the Fed chairman lending out all that money without any oversight.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm glad he's talking about it now, but like Greenspan who only said "he was wrong" after he left the job, i consider him just as much culpable as Timmy, having been the Fed chairman lending out all that money without any oversight.

I don't think you are aware of what you're talking about.

Bernanke has no power to arrest anyone. The Federal Reserve loaning is pretty standard and the execs that caused the recession weren't from Fed Reserve lending. During his tenure as chariman, he asked congress for more oversight tools (and often was rebuked by the GOP House).

He did about all he could do and he sure as hell helped out economy out in the process. He has absolutely nothing to do with Wall Street, it's greed, etc. Bernanke is an academic professor of economics whose specialty was recessions. He applied the lessons he learned from the past to help us. Sure, we can proclaim he was a bit too slow in reacting among other things, but if you accuse him of pandering to Wall Street or execs or bailing something out because he's "part of the problem," then you're making a very ignorant argument.

You're right to be angry but direct it properly.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Name some people who should be in jail. Fuck your "regulations" you won't push once elected. Put the people from the past in their place, who are likely funding your campaign. Earn some respect from the people voting Bernie over you.

Clinton is putting out actual plans though. Sanders is just making vague unworkable promises like "I'm gonna break up the banks" or "I'm going to put everyone through college."

 

[diffusionx]

Glass-Steagall is never coming back. There's literally zero chance of it ever getting through Congress. Huge companies with tons of influence would be broken up and that's never gonna happen again.

Clinton should just lie and say she supports it because it'll never happen, just like Gitmo was never closed (although Obama did actually spend political capital to get that done).

Jail time for individuals is an overrated revenge-driven red herring that won't mean anything for deterrence in the future. These are corporations, large institutions, and we're still intent on pursuing individual people?

You want change? Revoke bank charters. Revoke HSBC's charter to operate in the United States for laundering Sinaloa cartel money and money tied to terrorism in the Middle East. Who gives a shit if their CEO does 5 years in jail when HSBC gets to keep chugging along.

"Why not both?" Both would be great but there's not likely political capital for both.

Do you think the CEO of HSBC wants to spend 5 years in jail? Wouldn't you think the CEO of HSBC 2.0 would think about that before he puts his stamp of approval on laundering ISIS human trafficking money?

You can liquidate HSBC, they don't care. These guys have no shame. They'd be on the next scam, like Dick Fuld, Angelo Mozilo, etc.

 

[noshten]

Clinton is putting out actual plans though. Sanders is just making vague unworkable promises like "I'm gonna break up the banks" or "I'm going to put everyone through college."

Just goes to show that there is little actual knowledge of Sander's platform when people describe it as vague. The debates should be the first time he receives major prime TV coverage. People who haven't been following the Democratic side of the contest to actually see where he stands and what the actual plan is. You could also go on his website and read up but I guess a lot of people don't have the time to do that. I can assure you they are as concrete as Hillary's plans

 

[Big Green Anus]

Doesn't she receive Super-Pacs from Wall Street? I don't see her turning her back on that.

 

[B-Dubs]

Glass-Steagall is never coming back. There's literally zero chance of it ever getting through Congress. Huge companies with tons of influence would be broken up and that's never gonna happen again.

Clinton should just lie and say she supports it because it'll never happen, just like Gitmo was never closed (although Obama did actually spend political capital to get that done).

Except, that once again I must point out, that when a politician says they will try and do something they do try and do it. We have like 3 or 4 different studies showing this is true across most democracies, including our own. So her lying would go against her best interests.

As far as Gitmo goes, Congress blocked Obama from closing it. Not much he can do about that, if he had his way it would have been done by the end of his first year.

 

[Operations]

Taxing high-frequency trading? Truly idiotic, but I guess whatever sounds like going against those evil bankers helps her rally the masses.

 

[dramatis]

In what ways do you think that Hillary would be more effective against this gridlock than Bernie? Willingness to compromise, or more?

If Bernie wins the primary it will be largely thanks to successfully building a massive network of grassroots volunteers. He's already doing that, faster than Obama did. His long-term plan to enact the changes he's campaigning on is to motivate that network of volunteers to continue participating in this democracy long-term, meaning voting in midterm elections at a scale that doesn't usually happen and large-scale protests when Congress throws a shit fit over Berniecare. Is that laughable? That's up to you.

Bernie's grassroots network being bigger than Obama's is unlikely. He doesn't have the money Obama did, and he also lacks the Democratic party support Obama had. He has less resources.

Moreover, that's not a long term plan, that's just a vague idea of how to change the government. Bernie has not given details on how much an operation to sustain participation in democracy would cost, who would run it, how long it would run, where it would be, and so on. You act like nobody but Bernie has thought of this before.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't think you are aware of what you're talking about.

Bernanke has no power to arrest anyone. The Federal Reserve loaning is pretty standard and the execs that caused the recession weren't from Fed Reserve lending. During his tenure as chariman, he asked congress for more oversight tools (and often was rebuked by the GOP House).

I didn't say he had to arrest anyone. I said he was the one frequently giving excuses for having to loan out all that money with the Fed having no real oversight AFTER the crash.

It took an audit just to see how much they basically threw out there under the guise of 'keeping them solvent'.

 

[noshten]

Bernie's grassroots network being bigger than Obama's is unlikely. He doesn't have the money Obama did, and he also lacks the Democratic party support Obama had. He has less resources.

Moreover, that's not a long term plan, that's just a vague idea of how to change the government. Bernie has not given details on how much an operation to sustain participation in democracy would cost, who would run it, how long it would run, where it would be, and so on. You act like nobody but Bernie has thought of this before.

How is it unlikely considering how much the internet has changed the race since 08?
It's simply denying how much things have changed in the last 8 years, it is much easier to organize without huge investments.
I don't think you can deny that if Obama was running right now for the first time his organizational capability would be greatly expanded and the grassroots network would dwarf what we saw in 08. It's certainly no surprise that despite much smaller coverage Bernie has been able to build the organization and support. Last election Obama started his campaign in February, he took part of numerous debates that provided him with the needed platform so he could move from an unknown senator at the start of the race to the actual nominee.
Right now Bernie has consolidated 25% of the likely voters despite no debates and far less coverage of the Democratic Primary, while also showing he is capable of raising the needed funds to expand his campaign.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

"If you only reinstate Glass-Steagall, you don't go after all these other institutions, in what is called the shadow banking systems, hedge funds and other big financial entities that have too much power in our economy,"

Yeah, well, that's true, but you should still reinstate it in addition to other changes.