I dunno, man, my other contractor seems pretty solid.
Sanders on breaking up banks "I have not studied... the legal implications of that"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
I dunno, man, my other contractor seems pretty solid.
eBay Huckster
Member
On the flip side, at least I actually have standards.
Like, if Clinton got asked a question about the statutory authority the federal government would hold to impose paid maternal leave (just to give an example in her wheelhouse), I'd imagine she'd have a better answer than "I don't know, I'll have to study up on it" after 26-plus years of activism on the subject.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I kind of feel the same way. I'm not voting for Sanders regardless, but I probably would've voted for Warren. This interview just a huge mess and I'm only halfway through. Jesus.
Yeah. Holy shit.
This makes Barney Frank's criticism that he was AWOL when putting together Dodd-Frank seem like a stark indictment on Sanders own mastery of the current issues.
Seems like he's just been pounding the same table for thirty years and he's been so marginalized in Congress that he doesn't even know the mechanics of how to do what he's calling for.
Alandrus Sun
Banned
This right here and this is not the first time this has been revealed. Also OP didn't even highlight some other "great" parts.
It's just amazing how he answers these questions. He's asked directly what specifically has Wall St. done that was fraudulent, what were these laws that the government could have used the prosecute them? He cannot answer instead he pivots back to the same old emotional appeal about how "something" they did must have been illegal. They're corrupt, you see. They're all corrupt. It comes dangerously close to circular reasoning.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'm still amazed they had the gall to go with the name "Standard Oil". Probably some sort of story behind it.
The bare minimum would have been saying "Oh, we have a couple of options we are thinking of using" than list the fucking options.
I kind of feel like Bernie is the George Lucas of the the American left. Starts off well, everyone loves him, then he makes a bunch of missteps that he should have known better about, showing that he was really more of an ideas man than someone execution-oriented, and people don't just dislike him, they hate him, and he doesn't take the criticism to heart but gets gruff and prickly and doesn't want to play ball.
But I still love you George <3
But I still love you George <3
Link
The Autumn Wind
Man, that image is depressing. I'd imagine a similar image for ISP's would be just as bad.We're living in an era of unprecedented financial accumulation.
Sanders couldn't offer a good answer on how reverting to 20th century finance would affect our finance sector, because it's never been tried. However, the existence of huge, powerful banks has clear negative implications on our economy and well-being: risks taken are now felt much more severely by customers, and these banks have a serious political pull that was previously not present.
I think there is an issue here. This would be like if Obama in 08 didn't actually have a plan for implementing the stimulus or have any idea of what healthcare reform would look like. Even with the tenuous nature of politics and legislation, candidate Obama knew that he wanted congress to pass a massive spending bill with investments in all areas including infrastructure, energy, local pork barrel projects, and a middle class tax cut. He also knew that healthcare reform would include expanding medicare, subsidiaries, state run marketplaces, etc. Bernie really sounds like he doesn't have a plan for breaking up the big banks beyond somehow, without knowing the legal mechanism, breaking them up. I feel like Bernie has correctly diagnosed a problem but has no viable solution.
Elfforkusu
Member
Right. The exciting part about this is that it's the banking system, which has its tendrils into all parts of the government and would put up a hell of a fight.
You can also make the case that you really wouldn't want to tip your hand a year in advance of having the power to do anything. But rather than playing 10 dimensional chess, I think it's more likely that Bernie's left the details of the plan to advisors he trusts on this. Like anyone would when occupied running a massive campaign...
Or he knows nothing and is a big phony!
User 463088
Banned
Wait until you get to the Israel part. It's like word salad from someone who kinda took International Relations with a really cute TA who had this dimple, that made it so hard for me to....
Wait, what?
JesseEwiak
Member
Right. If Sanders got caught up on some question about energy policy or even K-12 education, I'd give him slack. Those weren't his key issues. But, I can guarantee you, for instance, that Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton could school you on every part of the health care or education system from bit to barrel while five martini's in while trying to hit on a 23 year old staffer at the same time.
zero shift
Banned
Like most of these threads, it is going to be mostly Hillary supporters see what they want to see. A man who is incompetent at being president who is led by a bunch of naive supporters. While on the flip side you have a bunch of Sanders supporters who see Hillary as a wolf in sheeps clothing.
The reality is that both sides are arguing is moot as neither of their candidates will be able to do shit once in the office due to the legislator. And both sides literally DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANS to rectify this. Bernie supporters think just electing a president will magically solve everything. Hillary supporters believe doing nothing will solve things as they wait until 2040 or so when the Demographics shift in their favor. The left in this country is fucked.
Pretty sure that motherfucker helped put a few holes in your roof though.
I'm no lawyer, but weirdly, I suspect that the only way to figure out if it was or wasn't definitively would be to try it and see what the courts say after the fact. I'm not saying it's not fucking embarrassing he didn't have a good answer, but I'm also not sure any truly sincere person could know for sure right now. At least no one running for president. I dunno. I guess I just have less faith in these characters than most. This is some pretty specific shit right?
Nobody ever reads the OP. This time I am guilty. I think the legal implication of THAT is banning. Oh well.
I read the title and the bolded stuff, but the question he is responding to is a little more specific than the title had me assuming. Weird thread. Maybe I just don't understand.
User 463088
Banned
Actually, Hillary does have a plan to help down ballot Democrats. So far, she's raised $35 million dollars to help get a friendly Congress.
Bernie's down ballot plan is "We'll see."
Link
The Autumn Wind
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I've never actually seen any Hillary person argue this point, and considering the state of the GOP there is a very good chance if Hillary wins the Senate turns blue, as well as the ramifications of Supreme Court going blue.
So on one side you have a man who doesn't know what case law will impact his plans, and the other side a person who has decades of experience within the government with great knowledge of the world as well as the ability to support all the down ticket candidates who will flip the Senate and parts of the House.
I'm sorry but it is inaccurate and very disingenuous to have such a title. The reality is that breaking up the banks would require a Supreme Court hearing no matter the reason. He isn't going to say "I'm going to introduce a bill to break up the banks built on broken legal loopholes which will be taken to the Supreme Court no matter what, and since we have a liberal majority it may get passed". Because in reality that is how breaking up the banks could ever realistically come into fuitation.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Default Oil was already taken.
Occam's razor. Difficulty, politicians.
farmerboy
Member
Hmmm.....politicians are only (mostly) really good at being politicians. Which (generally) means they are not that good at anything else. They may have a speciality but that will be it.
Anyone who thinks that the POTUS should know and be clear on every element of every policy that they stand for is delusional. Similarly, anyone who says they have "all" the answers, are bullshitting you to your face.
That's why the bureaucracy exists. To fill in all the details and information that the governing body needs. They remain a constant, while politicians come and go.
Also, Bernie, would not, at this point, have access to the information he needs to fully formulate the policy. But he knows enough to suggest that such a policy is needed or should be seriously considered.
Anyone who thinks that the POTUS should know and be clear on every element of every policy that they stand for is delusional. Similarly, anyone who says they have "all" the answers, are bullshitting you to your face.
That's why the bureaucracy exists. To fill in all the details and information that the governing body needs. They remain a constant, while politicians come and go.
Also, Bernie, would not, at this point, have access to the information he needs to fully formulate the policy. But he knows enough to suggest that such a policy is needed or should be seriously considered.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
SolarPowered
Member
I gotta say that I don't expect Bernie (or any politician for that matter) to have a an understandable (for the layman) answer for a question as loaded as this one. Breaking up institutions as large as these banks really is like breaking up standard oil. The only people who'll really know how to do it (and what consequences come as a result) are not people we'll be electing, but specialists brought into an administration. Forgive me if I'm horribly wrong and feel free to laugh.
It's only a matter of time before two of these guys fuse and become the 5th branch (4th is reserved for the NRA lol) of the US government.We're living in an era of unprecedented financial accumulation.
Sanders couldn't offer a good answer on how reverting to 20th century finance would affect our finance sector, because it's never been tried. However, the existence of huge, powerful banks has clear negative implications on our economy and well-being: risks taken are now felt much more severely by customers, and these banks have a serious political pull that was previously not present.
Pretty sure that motherfucker helped put a few holes in your roof though.
Did the guy who doesn't know anything about roofs tell you that?
I mean, I bet you could know what Dodd-Frank did to allow the Treasury to break up systemically important financial institutions if you READ DODD-FRANK.
This is kind of the whole problem with this thread! It is not at all unreasonable to expect that Bernie Sanders, whose biggest issue for twenty years was financial regulation, to know the specifics of what the biggest financial regulation bill in twenty years did. The fact that you think this is some mysterious legal quagmire is the very heart of the issue. It shouldn't be! We just passed a law that was super explicit on the topic! It's part of where we got the phrase "systemically important financial institution!"
Squirrel Killer
Member
Am I misreading something in this exchange:
Isn't this about the removal of MetLife's "too big to fail" designation last week? Who has had the chance to study the legal implications of that?
zero shift
Banned
I see it constantly.
The most important part of the legislator won't turn blue. The House. This is what matters and this is what both sides consistently ignore. Democrats have no plan to win the House back.
Not to mention if Sanders wins the Senate and the Court will go blue so...yeah.
That isn't a plan.
The DNC was very good at raising money the past two elections. Did jack shit.
Hillary Clinton and company have no plan to win the House.
David H Wong
Banned
I do think his heart is in the right place and I'm glad he ran to get these issues out there, but no, he doesn't have the faintest idea of how an economy works.
JesseEwiak
Member
Again, this isn't nuclear energy policy or K-12 funding or farm subsidies or some other issue that Bernie hasn't said anything much about. This is Bernie's signature issue. This is supposed to be the one think he's focused on for the past two decades.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
We can change the thread title if people would like. The content of the interview remains the same
User 463088
Banned
I don't expect everyone to know everything, but this is his bread and butter issue. This is a huge part of his platform, and he didn't even have a generic canned answer on how he's going to do this other than "I'm going to do it."
I'm not comparing Hillary and Bernie, but you should check out some of her town halls. She was asked a question about landmines in Laos and gave a four minute answer on it. Part of being President is being a bit of a policy wonk. You don't have to know everything, but you should have your talking points down...and those points should include answers to a very basic follow up question.
If that was true, then he'd spend a lot more time making sure that liberals were in position to get elected to congress than he is currently.
Also, Bernie sounds like Trump in this interview.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Oh that was really recent. I guess we won't see the Judge's reasons until Wednesday.
Marion Cobretti
Member
I know it was a 100 years ago, but Teddy Roosevelt took on JP Morgan and broke up monopolies, why can't a modern day president do the same?
Squirrel Killer
Member
That he hasn't studied the legal ramifications of a decision handed down four days ago?
Okay, but how about every element of their staple, decades-long issue?
The fact that you think politicians are only good at politicking and need a system of bureaucracy to fill in the policy details for them is... I don't know, disconcerting? Defeatist? Like, have you never heard the term "policy wonk"? There are many many politicians who fit that bill -- chief among them right now, Obama, Hillary, and Paul Ryan.
Can this site please just do what SomethingAwful does and just have one large Hillary vs Bernie megathread so we can keep the poopoo out of the general forum?
Supposedly it is controversial that someone running for president isn't giving straight answers in an interview.
Supposedly it is controversial that someone running for president isn't giving straight answers in an interview.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Did you miss the fact that the DNC willfully distanced themselves from Obama in 2014 which turns out to be one of the dumbest political moves which cost them the Senate, and the fact that the GOP had a little thing called the Tea Party movement that was directly funded with billions of dollars to take the House and roadblock Obama (as well as getting all the people mad that we actually have a black president and they came out to vote)?
Sure, money doesn't solve everything, but supporting down ticket candidates is actually really important for elections and is in fact part of the plan to win back the Senate.
And I would like to see some receipts on that whole "Hillary supporters just want to wait for 25 years for the total demographic change"
It's pretty obvious he basically has no idea how the finance industry actually works. Does he know how OATS reporting for financial securities works for example, has he even heard of it. There are way more important things to financial regulation than just Glass-Steagall or wanting to break up big banks
eBay Huckster
Member
I mean, I personally think the context is "he doesn't seem to be able to point to any legal basis for his policy positions as they pertain to breaking up the banks or jailing anyone who allegedly committed fraud 8 years ago", irrespective of whether you even count the Met Life question, but that's just me.
Because those bases come up before Met Life is even mentioned!
M0nochromatic
Member
Oh well, maybe the oligarchy won't be such a bad thing in the end.
Yeah this creates a vastly different context. The purpose of this thread is quiet dishonest in that case.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll