I don't see how expecting a guy to have some kind of specific plan and/or in-depth knowledge on one of the major things he advocates for is the same as expecting him to know everything about everything. He has brought up breaking up the banks and punishing Wall Street at every debate and during every stump speech I've seen from him, so it is crazy that he doesn't have more details on how he'll accomplish what he's constantly saying he will accomplish.
Sanders on breaking up banks "I have not studied... the legal implications of that"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
hodayathink
Member
And honestly, this is what you hire people for. Like someone said, senators don't write bills, they have interns that do it for them (or a lobbyist basically writes the bill and gives it to a senator to put their name on it). If you're been campaigning on it for this long, at some point you should have hired someone to come up with at least something that sounds like a concrete plan that you can tell people when they actually ask you about it.
finowns
Member
No man, they've exposed Bernie.. he's done. His life a lie.
This thread is depressing. We're going to live as serfs when all the wealth accumulates. And the one game in town that's at least talking about it is derided as an incompetent.
That's because there is no way for Democrats to win the House back until at least the next census in 2020. So what do you want?
Agreed, and even then compared to Obama it's not good. He was getting daily briefings on the financial crisis as it happened, he had world class economists giving him a crash course in economics so complete that many figured he came out of it with knowledge equivalent to someone with a masters in economics. That's the sort of guy I want running the damn country, the kind of guy that will not only admit when he doesn't know something, but will actively correct the issue.
Your posts are honestly coming off as self-righteous wankery. You are arguing like there is a possible plan that the democrats can adopt other than the one that they are already using. And a plan that will be far more effective.
Well, what the fuck is it? I sure as shit don't know how you convince people to vote democrat besides propaganda, grass roots organizations, etc., all shit that the democrats are already doing.
JesseEwiak
Member
It's no use to have a revolution if those in charge of the revolution can't keep the trains running on time.
DR2K
Banned
Trumps own party is trying to get rid of him.
eBay Huckster
Member
You mean the one game in town that's talking about it in only the vaguest possible sense even as his direct opponent talks a considerably more detailed game, because I have no idea how someone can pay attention to all candidates' platforms and actually type this sentence
zero shift
Banned
This is still not answering my question.
What is Hillary's plan to win back the House? I see people criticize Sanders, but not Hillary.
All you have done with the post is list the idiotic decisions that Democrats have made and CONTINUE to make during elections. You haven't listed a single thing that they are doing differently.
They aren't going to magically become competent this year. They have the same chair heading the DNC as well as the same people in power. They still hold several philosophies that have gotten them into this mess in the first place such as trying to appeal to people who will never vote for them.
I'm not going to dig through this forum, but try finding a post about how Democrats can't win the house due to gerrymandering. It will quickly lead into a conversation about how the only way for the Democrats to win back the house is to wait for demographics to change which should magically happen four years from now (it will be like 24 in reality).
User 463088
Banned
President Obama also had foreign policy advisers that, you know, actually were advisers...and had really met with the candidate.
Squirrel Killer
Member
The context for the quote that The Technomancer used for the thread title is in answer to a direct question about the MetLife decision last week.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I think what really puts me off is that while people defend him for the fact that he proposes things without considering that they may not be doable, people attack Trump for similarly promising things that he couldn't possibly achieve. I do not want Bernie to be promising things that he might not be able to deliver.
eBay Huckster
Member
That, or it'll lead to a conversation about how the only way the Democrats win the house is if they get at least a 6-point popular vote margin in the generic Congressional ballot, which
wait a minute
True, but it could also neatly summarize the contradictory answers to the several questions immediately preceding that one. First he says the President can break them up by Fed or Dodd-Frank fiat, then he says the President can't?
To me, that quote pretty much encapsulated the back and forth between him and the interviewer about him having no clue about which existing powers he can use to break up the banks as well. Sure, you can maybe fault it if you argue it in a very narrow and specific fashion, but that just seems rather pedantic to me.
zero shift
Banned
How can they win 2020 if they won't be able to get the House by then?
NihonTiger90
Member
Well, in the 1980s, the feds broke up AT&T's monopoly into a bunch of regional Baby Bells.
30 years later, the gang is almost all back together again (except for the Northeast Bells that merged together into Verizon, and Cincinnati Bell, which kind of just does its own thing and is actually not horrifyingly awful) except it was one of AT&T's children companies that reconsolidated everything, SBC.
And now you have Time Warner attempting to merge with Charter, and constant talks about T-Mobile getting bought out by a competitor, which makes me wonder if we're due to see something like this happen again in the near future.
No. Being 30 did. I've watched every contractor in town do it. Your roof caved and now they are openly doing it again. I was mostly joking, but this shit didn't start with Bush did it?
That wasn't the question he was answering though. Unless I misunderstand the question?
Either way, I'll fully admit I'm mostly joking. I am a single issue voter. This is all a nice diversion till the world is unlivable in 75 years. So I'm probably way off base on all of it. I'm not even that into Bernie. I just think this hand wringing is kinda being framed as something more interesting than it is.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Look at the full context.
Given the previous banter, you would think he would have SOMETHING else to add to that question. Throughout all of the questions, he gave no means by which he will break up the banks.
Edit: The interviewer was giving that as an example as one of the avenues being possibly closed off.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
lol This must be the first time I have ever seen press actually call him out on his bs.
And he choked. I also love how he gave absolutely no substantive answers when pressed on HOW he is going to break the banks.
I am going to break the banks!
You are not a dictator though.
They will break themselves! They will listen to me.
No one went to jail for the 2008 Mortgage crisis!
What did they do was illegal though?
Nothing really. But I will look into it. I will have my people look into it.
Does this remind you guys of someone?
And he choked. I also love how he gave absolutely no substantive answers when pressed on HOW he is going to break the banks.
I am going to break the banks!
You are not a dictator though.
They will break themselves! They will listen to me.
No one went to jail for the 2008 Mortgage crisis!
What did they do was illegal though?
Nothing really. But I will look into it. I will have my people look into it.
Does this remind you guys of someone?
Battersea Power Station
Member
Personally, I think Bernie is the next Madoff and electing him President will usher in 10,000 years of death and darkness (unless you are a white, male, college student -- P.S. plenty of time still left to get a sex and skin change operation as well as to go back to school), but even I think this is a misleading interview.
Did Obama know exactly how he was going to close Guantanamo Bay? No, and maybe he still doesn't. The President is not a dictator, but he does have a large amount of influence. He can appoint a committee. He can help introduce and sway legislature. He can bring members of Congress together.
I think Sanders is saying, in very literal terms, that he doesn't know which option will be the best. I don't think anyone does until the election is over and we can take stock of the new political landscape. If he says, "We're going to write Bill HR012 and I'm going to talk to these reps in order to get it passed" it will become political fodder immediately and will be used against him by any- and every- one. For now, it's enough that he says he will make it a priority of his first year in office. In some ways, that's really what a President's job is: to set priorities.
Did Obama know exactly how he was going to close Guantanamo Bay? No, and maybe he still doesn't. The President is not a dictator, but he does have a large amount of influence. He can appoint a committee. He can help introduce and sway legislature. He can bring members of Congress together.
I think Sanders is saying, in very literal terms, that he doesn't know which option will be the best. I don't think anyone does until the election is over and we can take stock of the new political landscape. If he says, "We're going to write Bill HR012 and I'm going to talk to these reps in order to get it passed" it will become political fodder immediately and will be used against him by any- and every- one. For now, it's enough that he says he will make it a priority of his first year in office. In some ways, that's really what a President's job is: to set priorities.
Barajas_201
Member
Ugh. OT-GAF has become extremely toxic with Hillary supporters in anything Bernie related. They keep pushing the "one issue", "only white millennials", "bernie bros", "people don't actually go vote for him" narrative on top of misquoting and straight up make up lies about him that debunking every one of this narrative is useless since it has become a circle-jerk of Hillary supporters.
"Yo Bernie answer this complex issue that requires many experts to actually give a cohesive answer in one sentence."
"I'll be honest, I don't know everything."
THIS MAN IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, BERNIE BROS GET IN LINE AND VOTE FOR YAS QUEEN. ~ HillaryGAF.
I honestly don't see why should Bernie supporters go out and vote in swing states for someone that is slightly better than conservatives but against their core believes and morals when said candidate's supporters constantly belittles them, compares them to the Tea-Party (aka racist) and are so condescending and smug. This attitude will only backfire on Hillary.
"Yo Bernie answer this complex issue that requires many experts to actually give a cohesive answer in one sentence."
"I'll be honest, I don't know everything."
THIS MAN IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, BERNIE BROS GET IN LINE AND VOTE FOR YAS QUEEN. ~ HillaryGAF.
I honestly don't see why should Bernie supporters go out and vote in swing states for someone that is slightly better than conservatives but against their core believes and morals when said candidate's supporters constantly belittles them, compares them to the Tea-Party (aka racist) and are so condescending and smug. This attitude will only backfire on Hillary.
That interview is infuriating. Look, my job is working with policy. If you work with one issue, you should have a general understanding about the regulations and laws that surround it. I can generally paraphrase sections of Title 7 of the federal regulations, but yes, I might need to research certain issues to ensure I have a firm understanding of specific language and individual regulations. But him not understanding something basic like how Dodd-Frank can be used, I would be fired from my job if I couldn't explain to you the basic regulations surrounding the SNAP program, and I haven't been involved with it anywhere near as long as Sanders has been involved with his Wall Street crusade.
Hillary even pointed out in a couple of the debates how Dodd-Frank can be used to deal with some of these financial institutions and he either ignored it or was simply too caught up in his populist message to care.
Hillary even pointed out in a couple of the debates how Dodd-Frank can be used to deal with some of these financial institutions and he either ignored it or was simply too caught up in his populist message to care.
What?
You don't actually need to win the House in 2020 to win the House going forward.
What Democrats need to do is get some key incumbents in the race in 2016 (a year they could win and Hillary is raising money for downticket Democrats), and also in 2020.
But, your main focus in 2020 is winning state legislative races in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, as well as establishing non-partisan redistricting ballot initiatives in states that allow it. $100 in a state legislative race goes much further than $100 in a presidential race or even a congressional race, and since these districts are low-pop, it's easier to swing them if they're targeted correctly.
Then, when the maps are redrawn, they make it much more likely that Democrats will have more favorable maps in states that they win but have been shut out of like Pennsylvania. This is for 2022.
It's not ideal to complain about being belittled by supporters of a candidate while belittling the supporters of a candidate.
User 463088
Banned
I'm not saying I have all the specifics, but our local Democrats have already been given tools and information, through the Clinton campaign, to target communities to help elect Strickland for Senator. We're still in super early days, but the information and resources did come from the Hillary Victory Fund, I believe. Hillary's been working to integrate her campaign into the ground level infrastructure nation wide. She did a lot of that early. The state-by-state Victory funds are part of that plan.
Again, though, we can take this to a very basic level. Bernie has said he'll see if he supports down ballot Democrats. He's raised zero dollars. He's never been on the stump for our down ballot candidates. The Clintons have done that for decades. There's a reason Congresspeople and potential candidates seek them out. They've always been there shaking the hands, eating the rubber chicken and doing the grunt work.
GameAddict411
Member
Sanders have always used logical fallacies in his argument(s). He was trying to dodge the question a few times, and immediately defaulted to an emotional appeal instead of logic. Believe or not, it's the same exact persuasive method that Trump uses. Which is a huge red flag in my opinion. I always hear the same generic garbage from both of these candidates, but none of them are qualified to be president of the United States given how out of touch they are from reality. Also ignorance is key word here, none of them know what the fuck they are talking about.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If Hillary Clinton disappeared tomorrow, these issues with Sanders would still exist. The fact is that he has no realistic policy for breaking up the banks, or enacting single payer, or hiking the minimum wage up to 15 dollars nationwide, or getting money out of politics. It's just over the top promises.
If you think this is just about Clinton people gloating then you've missed the bigger picture.
Melkezadek
Member
Ugh. Can we quit it with this "Well what about Hilary?" shit? This persecution complex is growing stale.
As someone who supported Bernie and voted for him in the primaries, it would be dishonest of me to say this interview isn't troubling to me. He actually seems out of his depth on many of the issues he's fighting for. I absolutely believe his heart is in the right place and his feelings are genuine - but throughout this interview, (like he does alot in debates ) he'll take a question and direct it to a stump speech we've heard dozens of times. I was hoping that as the campaign got further this would get better, but it hasn't at all. How can people not see that?
If Hilary gave these kind of responses, I know many people in this thread would be on digging into her.
I'm starting to see him more like Trump. Not in the substance of his rhetoric, but in the big talk, little knowledge. I don't think he would ruin the country by any means, but President might not be where he needs to be.
As someone who supported Bernie and voted for him in the primaries, it would be dishonest of me to say this interview isn't troubling to me. He actually seems out of his depth on many of the issues he's fighting for. I absolutely believe his heart is in the right place and his feelings are genuine - but throughout this interview, (like he does alot in debates ) he'll take a question and direct it to a stump speech we've heard dozens of times. I was hoping that as the campaign got further this would get better, but it hasn't at all. How can people not see that?
If Hilary gave these kind of responses, I know many people in this thread would be on digging into her.
I'm starting to see him more like Trump. Not in the substance of his rhetoric, but in the big talk, little knowledge. I don't think he would ruin the country by any means, but President might not be where he needs to be.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
What options did he give? Would be nice if he gave an option.
You don't even have to be moderate to be primaried, there has been talk of primarying Pelosi and Debbie Shultz, who while she can't run the DNC worth a shit, is not a terrible vote in office.
Night Angel
Member
I fucking hate Hillary and I think Bernie is a complete idiot blowing smoke up everyone's asses to trick young idealists into voting for him when he has no plan at all.
The persecution complex of the Sanders camp is truly a sight to behold.
zero shift
Banned
Oh please. The Democrats have lost the legislator handily both times since 2010. Meanwhile they have done nothing but blame everything on external factors. Voter apathy, gerrymandering, an off chance conservative revolution, etc. Sorry, but it gets a little old constantly playing the blame game.
"What can Democrats do?" There is no straight shoot victory for anything. However, a likely solution would be that they need to find ways to appeal to voters who lean Democrat but aren't gunho about them. The reality is that the majority of voters lean Democrat but a large portion of them don't vote due to being apathetic. This includes poor whites, immigrants, and Hispanics. Yet instead of targeting these groups they do stupid shit like trying to distance themselves from Obama and appealing to conservatives in the 2014 elections when they got slaughtered. Before that they underestimated the right wing after their victory in the 2008 election. It's things like this why people left the more moderate aisle of the Democrats in the first place.
This is true. But how do they plan on doing that if they are losing now? This is my issue.
To be fair Bernie has had to establish himself as viable candidate first. He went from being relatively unknown to being as major as he is today. It is likely he, believed at least, needed every single cent to compete. I do agree that Hillary is doing good work raising money for the states. Though it could be because she has enough comfort to do so.
Probably because the RNC and DNC both historically like big banks and she is big in the DNC. I don't think it's specific to her. Just a generation of people who fought in some terrible wars, inherited a shitty economy and constantly get called lazy because they missed out on a housing bubble an live in their parents basement.
Same shit that drives people to Trump by less cynical and racist.
I agree. I think a lot Bernie voters feel that way at this point. Maybe it's rationalizing, but I don't really have faith in anybody so I'm not really gonna guilt myself over it.
But none of that has happened yet and the primaries have already happened and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a pretty bad candidate to target since she's very active in her district.
Why not target Dan Lipinski during the Illinois primary?
Why not target disgusting Islamaphobe Tulsi Gabbard during the Hawaii primary?
What downticket Dems is the Bernie coalition actually supporting besides a Quixotic effort to take out someone who could still be the head of the DNC even if they lose their seat? What red seats are they trying to turn blue with Sherrod Brown-types?
Truth. Only other candidate that wouldn't know the in's and out's of this issue is Trump.
Well, they are and they aren't. The plan has been, as I said, to slowly win key incumbents (that will always have a better chance of winning than a challenger) before an all out push in 2020.
It's two-fold. There's no reason for a rising star in the Democratic party to run for Congress now. Even if they win an R+3 seat, they'll probably lose it in 2018. Same with people running for state legislative seats. They're also not going to be able to raise as many funds that they would need to win.
The Dems plan has always been to support key challengers up until 2020, and then do an all out push in 2020 when rising locals stars have a chance of taking key chambers and, most importantly, drawing districts that benefit their own party.
GameAddict411
Member
I find it really funny how people are defending him here. "It's totally unrealistic to expect him to know everything...blah blah blah" my ass. He has been advocating for breaking up the banks for months now, and the fact he was clueless about the details just shows that he relying on the emotional appeal to be elected. He probably knows he can't pass 95% of the shit he claims that he will do in his presidency.
And this is a good thing?
I desperately hope we don't see that shit start with the democrats as well because that is what turned the Republican party into a bunch of nuts and the rest too afraid to compromise or be seen even talking to democrats because they are worried that their hardcore base will primary them.
That is one of the huge problems with our electoral system, and one that I do not want to see exacerbated.
Well, it depends.
I find people like Dan Lipinski and Tulsi Gabbard to be pretty repugnant. Both are in safe-D seats. I'd like to see them gone.
On the other hand, people like Elizabeth Etsy (who is in a marginal D seat yet still wins) or a Kyrsten Sinema should never be primaried.
Innnnnteresting. Where does Kanye running for president in 2020 factor into this?
Marion Cobretti
Member
I can't tell if what I said was so dumb that no one wanted to waste their time, or if no one actually has an answer for me. I'll post again just in case.
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?
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
What he says the president can't do is determine how they break themselves up, not that administration, either through Dodd-Frank or some mythical new legislation, can't start the breakup process.
And the direct question was "And what does that presage for your program?" "That" = last week's MetLife decision. Taking a specific answer to a specific question and applying it to an general issue "he's been talking about that issue for his entire career" (as B-Dub put it) is classic political disinformation.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The key point is monopoly. What monopolies are there to break up?
today's banks are not monopolies
they are systemic threats when over leveraged. not the same.
A trust or monopoly is different than a bank that's too big to fail. The power to do this isn't in anti-trust laws; ironically it's in Dodd-Frank, which Bernie has railed against.
zero shift
Banned
This is more in the line of what I'm talking about. A legitimate strategy.
It still seems very similar to what has been done before and I doubt it will work, but it is four years too early so there's always a chance. It's also the matter of how they will push and market those challengers as we saw in the last election, which is my main concern.
Regardless I think its still disingenuous for people to criticize Sanders for being "planless" when he just emerged onto the presidential scene less than a year ago and only really became a contender two months ago. Hillary and co. have had years to formula this plan. They already seem to be doing a more grassroots approach and Sanders at least seems willing to kick DWS out to the curb.
They've been pretty vocal about it.
One of the races they put a lot of money into was the PA Supreme Court races last year (they won all 3) which gave them a majority on the court. The PA Supreme Court can, hypothetically, strike down gerrymandered maps to the PA House and PA Senate. Those maps can then, in turn, lead to a more representative state House and Senate for a marginal D state that can draw more representative maps for the state at large.
Pennsylvania has 18 congressmen. There are only 5 Democrats. Obama won the state in 2012 by 5 points. That's insane.
Sanders responded to "we'll see" when asked about supporting downticket Dems. That alone is frustrating to people who have been working hard to undo the mess that happened in 2010.
The JP Morgan break-up was about their railroad monopoly. And, believe it or not, while banks are big they are not monopolies.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll