Well, I don't think that was the question. You want him to just throw out ideas? That feels like theater. I dunno. Seems like he just answered the question.
Sanders on breaking up banks "I have not studied... the legal implications of that"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
Well, I don't think that was the question. You want him to just throw out ideas? That feels like theater. I dunno. Seems like he just answered the question.
Yes, actually. You say that as if it's unrealistic to expect a candidate to have a reasonable starting point for how they plan to enact their policies.
Amazing, a politician having specific ideas for what they want to do when they get into office, instead of broad ideas.
How so? This interview makes Bernie look *really* bad. I'd be taken aback even if I were a supporter.
I've been skeptical of Bernie for quite a while now, and this interview does nothing but confirm what a lot of people already knew - he has some evil bogeymen that he likes to shout about (like 'the oligarchy') but no actual plans to fix them other than "I'll figure it out once you elect me."
Between this and his unwillingness to release his tax returns (bad optics for someone whose platform centers heavily around transparency), he seems as unprepared for the role as ever. I'm so glad that he has no chance of winning.
1 and 3 are already happening under Obama, who is a better president than either Hillary and Bernie. 4 is going to happen with Hillary. 2 and 5 could be stopped by either democrat candidates so why choose the one that has bad unfavorable ratings, lower poll numbers against republicans, and special interest baggage. Why not pick the one who has used careful judgement in his 25+ years experience in congress and executive experience as a mayor for two terms in Burlington?
Hillary has more votes, that means more people want her therefore she should be the nominee. That's how democracy works.
EnthronedReaper
Neo Member
Damn yall some bernie haters. He's ambitious and in my eyes the best canditade we've had in a while. Maybe not the most electable in some regards, but the boy has a chance. Hell I even have a friend who is currently a teller at Chase her job is possibly on the chopping block of if JP Morgan Chase is broken up, AND she still feels the burn. We've been way too stagnant as a country. We used to be ambitous with our society but we've fallen behind in innovations to how we coexist.
This country was founded on ambitious and leftist ideas, and liberty for people. Liberty to me can also be implied as having a set up base line for standard of living for the people. Times have changed and collectively we need to shift our policies with the natural growth that comes with time. Not to mention we have way more cash to spread so let's spread that shiiiiit. As a country we have enough money collectively to do some pretty incredible stuff.
As someone who has traveled abroad I used to see other countries admire the United States and how we ran our country. Now some believe and even are doing better in some aspects. We are America at one point in history considered the greatest power world. we should lead with bold ideas
Sorry for the wall of text. Please feel free to school me with some facts if you disagree
This country was founded on ambitious and leftist ideas, and liberty for people. Liberty to me can also be implied as having a set up base line for standard of living for the people. Times have changed and collectively we need to shift our policies with the natural growth that comes with time. Not to mention we have way more cash to spread so let's spread that shiiiiit. As a country we have enough money collectively to do some pretty incredible stuff.
As someone who has traveled abroad I used to see other countries admire the United States and how we ran our country. Now some believe and even are doing better in some aspects. We are America at one point in history considered the greatest power world. we should lead with bold ideas
Sorry for the wall of text. Please feel free to school me with some facts if you disagree
IrishNinja
Member
single largest expansion in healthcare/social services for generations now, but nah, not a damn thing
terrible idea - some of us don't fuck with megathreads, that's why these are here. feel free to ignore em like everyone does certain topics already
As we've seen with gay marriage in red states and California's budget problems democracy can be wrong sometimes.
#WillofthePeople
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
So screw the will of the people? Really that's your logic?
Yes, if it means oppressing people. Are you kidding me? Democracy is an imperfect system. That's why the Supreme Court has to step in once in awhile.
IrishNinja
Member
agreed, but your comparison isn't very fitting here - popular choice in candidate is not the same thing as say, leaving civil rights to the whimsy of the majority
I was joking that democracy can be wrong.
The Wall just got higher.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Except your comparing voting to laws being seen as constitutional and unconstitutional. SC goes against the will of the people when it comes to laws, not elected officials no matter how heinous of a person they may be.
IrishNinja
Member
A very basic outline of a plan on how to apply one of your main campaign policies isn't "some legal stuff", for fuck's sake, especially when it involves restructuring the whole financial system of the goddamn country.
Are you fucking kidding me here?
I agree that it is something he should know but it is no reason to then just vote for neoliberal crooks instead. Sanders is the only decent candidate on the social economic front.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean, this isn't really new if you've been paying attention at all.
Breaking up banks is just a fatuous slogan, not a practical policy. And the intent really has little to do with risk reduction.
Breaking up banks is just a fatuous slogan, not a practical policy. And the intent really has little to do with risk reduction.
Yes it is a practical policy, very practical even. Break banks up into an utility bank and an investor bank.
M0nochromatic
Member
We broke up this kind of thing before, but over time they just keep getting back together. At a certain point wealth and power allows for the acquistion of more wealth and power on that large scale. Why try and fight it? It's seemingly inevitable, and this time it's more corrupt and ingrained then it's ever been before.
Is there any wonder as to why some citizens are apathetic towards America's politics, and abstain from voting?
Is there any wonder as to why some citizens are apathetic towards America's politics, and abstain from voting?
Bernie is Bernie. He doesn't change. He has never been a leader. He has never led the charge on finance or banking reform. He has always been a critic. He points out problems. That's the job of a critic. The real issue arises when his solutions are paper thin, lacking in detail, and poorly thought out. But that doesn't mean he is a bad critic, just a bad leader and not someone I want in the White House.
Can Crusher
Banned
Somehow the reporter wasnt as interested in the climate change answer.
Actually Obama has been opposed by an obstructinist house and Senate for most of his tenure so this is a valid argument not that he didn't get shit done but he could have done so much more and Obama is very centerist and pragmatic ... If it weren't about pure politics he would have got way more done . I mean I Will take Obama as un gen sec and I would have to look way back to dunno Kennedy (brother Robert) to any other American leader I would consider acceptable for a world leader. That's how moderate he was the republican party just shat on a great opportunity for biparitanship just for their own political gains
Edit
The world sees Obama for what he tried to do and its no surprise he's almost universally respected
TyphoonStruggle
Member
How about you ask Hillary what are the unintended consequences of her Renewable Energy plan?
The truth is that NO ONE KNOWS. I work as a researcher in sustainable engineering and in very inter-disciplinary fields of work. There is no one with a complete understanding of what it means to move to a completely distributed energy resources -- e.g. batteries, solar PV, wind, etc. -- for the US. You have, for example, Germany who has high penetration renewable energy, but their electricity rates are very high and its not uncommon for them to have negative prices of electricity to their neighbors.
As far as economics, well its not exactly a hard science. I'm pretty sure you can find an economist to fit any point of view.
So ya. Shame on Hillary for not knowing more than the rest of the world and solving their engineering/scientific questions. Shame on Hillary for not putting all of us researchers out of a job. Why am I even researching this stuff? I guess we're not really that smart. (Really?)
Edit: Exactly how much should we expect politicians to know? Should Hillary be expected to know what it means when we talk renewable intermittency, duck curve, power system harmonics, AC vs DC power, inverters, rectifiers... This is all important part of understanding the problems engineers face.
The truth is that NO ONE KNOWS. I work as a researcher in sustainable engineering and in very inter-disciplinary fields of work. There is no one with a complete understanding of what it means to move to a completely distributed energy resources -- e.g. batteries, solar PV, wind, etc. -- for the US. You have, for example, Germany who has high penetration renewable energy, but their electricity rates are very high and its not uncommon for them to have negative prices of electricity to their neighbors.
As far as economics, well its not exactly a hard science. I'm pretty sure you can find an economist to fit any point of view.
So ya. Shame on Hillary for not knowing more than the rest of the world and solving their engineering/scientific questions. Shame on Hillary for not putting all of us researchers out of a job. Why am I even researching this stuff? I guess we're not really that smart. (Really?)
Edit: Exactly how much should we expect politicians to know? Should Hillary be expected to know what it means when we talk renewable intermittency, duck curve, power system harmonics, AC vs DC power, inverters, rectifiers... This is all important part of understanding the problems engineers face.
Btw I'm not sure most ppl in favour of capitalism don't get how investment banks are a logical consequence . it's a financial system it's pure math there is a profit to be made and smart ppl will make it . its simple math in some sense so unless you blow up with twenty billion restrictions it will happen . its just gaming the financial system .... Will happen.
And who is? I mean Hillarly is being investigated by the fucking FBI... That should disqualify her automatically
Agree with you I think Sanders is truly promising a grey goose but in no way is he unqualified for office . Sanders is too idealistic imo but Dec a viable candidate . totally off point post by him/her.
Honestly, if Bernie Sanders could only do one single thing in his term - all that would matter in the end - is removing money from politics. Strict anti-corruption laws in your politics, especially enforcing a limit on political contributions to something like $5000 and not allowing non-direct contributions.
US is the most corrupt first world modern nation on this planet. Your main presidential candidate actually takes bribes outside her political donations via "speeches". Almost every politician you have takes donations from corporations which are treated as a higher priority constitute then your citizens due to the donation system.
Oh, and just because people confuse it. I'm talking about the actual definition of first world, i.e. first world - "West", second world - "East", third world - "Others". I don't think US is ahead of second world countries in terms of social policies and quality of life. The new first world is Scandinavia, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, etc.
US is the most corrupt first world modern nation on this planet. Your main presidential candidate actually takes bribes outside her political donations via "speeches". Almost every politician you have takes donations from corporations which are treated as a higher priority constitute then your citizens due to the donation system.
Oh, and just because people confuse it. I'm talking about the actual definition of first world, i.e. first world - "West", second world - "East", third world - "Others". I don't think US is ahead of second world countries in terms of social policies and quality of life. The new first world is Scandinavia, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, etc.
EnthronedReaper
Neo Member
Well to start I made some accusations aswell which is where my platitudes stem from. For instance, we as a democracy as of the last century a face a stagnation in progressive legislation that betters the governed and portrays the will of the people
Royal_Phalanx
Member
Sanders isn't the best politician by any means. If anything people are supporting him because he doesn't represent the mainstream. His ideas, however, are the best out of any Presidential candidate. I want Hillary to be President, but that's because she's at least better than the shitty Republican candidates rather than any actual personal support for her.
shinra-bansho
Member
The investment arms of an entity like JP Morgan would still be systemically important.
Yes but such things are impossible to fix within a capitalist system (afaik). At least you can save people's bank accounts with the split.
Who the hell praises Donald Trump for "bullshiting things" as he goes along? Certainly nobody here. Probably only his supporters, and they support him for other things, not his policy specifically.
Yeah! Who gives a shit that black people can vote anyways? And fuck those gay people who want to be able to get married and be treated like normal human beings? Who do they think they are?
Seriously, dude? That is some myopia.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
Bernie not having a detailed plan on how to solve a (perfectly valid) issue is apparently grounds to trash his principles, ignoring how important he is in bringing these issues to the forefront of politics. And I thought this forum was left wing.
HappyBivouac
Member
Oh, gosh. A politician who actually admits he is fallible and that tackling certain issues is hard work, instead of bullshitting his way into office with whatever people want to hear?
The horror.
Also, this. A thousand times this.
The horror.
Also, this. A thousand times this.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Is this some kind of joke? Sanders has promised the moon, promises anyone who has spent 30 years in Washington knows cannot be delivered.
shinra-bansho
Member
Here's her regulatory plan. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/
It's a bit under 5,000 words.
I look forward to your detailed analysis.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
she has actually gone into quite some detail about what she wants to do. and she has propped up and supported the dems both financially and strategically as a means to help do it
but yes poor bernie has been unfairly targeted with such complicated questions like the ones in the interview /s
i wish I could visit a parallel world where bernie gets the nom and actually gets targeted by republicans. and then after the flaying he gets i could safely return here
This doesn't even matter lmao.
Some of the most leveraged banks during the financial/subprime mortgage crisis were strictly investment banks ie lehman brothers
You don't even have a grasp of how money in USA politics works.
The problem, even from a "get money out of politics" angle isn't political contributions. That is regulated by law. It's Super PACs and the millions being spent by billionaires on flooding the airwaves with their agenda. Hillary's "speeches" are a drop in the flood that is people like Soros and the Koch Brothers, but keep railing on her giving a speech at one her senatorial home state's biggest firms. How awful!
I also love how you're condescendingly critiquing the USA's status in the world, as if we don't foot almost eh entirety of the bill for Europe's international security presence against Russian encroachment.
Truly wonderful stuff.
Yes it does matter. It protects people's bank accounts. Of course you need more regulation next to splitting the banks up, nobody is saying that this is a magic fix.
Did people lose bank accounts in the mortgage crisis? Was that the problem?
Lmao
What about how an asset that people had put their life savings into and had taken as growing for granted, while it was chopped up and bundled into shittier securities over and over, was actually worthless, bubble inflated garbage?
Your understanding of what went wrong in the mortgage crisis is very wrong. Chopping up Investment Banks and Conventional Banks does nothing to address the underlying systemic issues. It's a panacea that sounds nice because "BREAK UP THE BANKS" rhetoric.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll