Sanders on breaking up banks "I have not studied... the legal implications of that"

Status
Not open for further replies.
What exactly did he intend to accomplish with this so-called "bill"? He supposedly spent all these years being anti-Wall street and this is all he could come up with?

It's a fluff bill. His intention was to use the title as a way to say "see, I've always been for breaking up the banks, I even introduced a bill that intended to do just that but it was VOTED DOWN BY THE ESTABLISHMENT!"

His intention was not genuine.
 
I personally think Bernie probably does have an idea of how he'll accomplish his goals, but he is holding his tongue at this stage because any action to achieve his goal is bound to be unpopular. You don't break up companies without causing pain to a lot of people.

I'm just an outsider though (registered independent and have decided not to register Democrat to try to influence the primary), but if I were him, that's what I'd be doing.
 
In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.
Dear, God, this is terrifying.

He doesn't even have a concrete definition of what "To Big to Fail" means.

We're taking about a 20 year veteran of the Senate and this is the kind of legislation that he proposes?
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy.

Hillary helped pass the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill. She was a major supporter of it, voted for it, and still supports the restrictions that were in place before Citizen's United (a legal battle over how much money people could spend on anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda, btw). She promises to nominate SC justices who would repeal the SC ruling, and there's no reason to believe she wouldn't keep her promise.
 
Irony: An echo chamber of Clinton supporters calling out Sanders for ignorance.

Sigh.

Not sure that's irony. But there are plenty of Sanders fans here, too (personally, I like them both, notwithstanding the issues I've raised in this thread). You're welcome to join in and tip the scales back towards Sanders if you think some poster is wrong.
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them).

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy.
Bernie can try and do whatever he wants, but if he has no good ideas on how to do it, or how to work with congress to get laws passed, he'll get absolutely nothing done on anything. I think Hilary can actually get plans enacted and get shit done. And even if Bernie can get things done, can he do it in a way where his good intentions don't end up leading to a disaster? Just saying "other countries have done it" is irrelevant because it ignores the complex web of social, economic, and other issues that would be involved in getting it to work in America.

The President is not a dictator. They need to be able to work with others. They can not pass laws, they can only reject them. And just trying to quickly brute force issues can be disasterous in a large number of ways
 
The one true Scottsman!

Sorry, but in the entire History of the United States something like "The One" has happened once. And Habeus Corpus was suspended, the nation at war, and martial law was enacted. Even then, it's debatable.

Bernie ain't no Lincoln.

The change you demand will not come from one Savior. It will require hard work, years of constituent building, and compromise along the way.

This sort of unicorn thinking is detrimental to enacting the policies progressive actually want to see. Rolling back 40 years of GOP malfease isn't going to be a one man, one job effort.

And the vilification of an ally like Hillary is pretty repulsive. Taking someone that's 90% the way with you on every core issue and excluding them as just as bad is some Teaparty wacko shit.

Fuck these purity tests and appeals to irrational thinking. It's increasingly becoming clear the far left is no better than that far right, only without a realistic plan to actually elect anyone.

Exactly. But if you point out that we can't fix all the problems overnight, that it'll take a concerted effort at all levels of government, and that it might require compromising along the way to get something done that can be improved later rather than constantly having to start from scratch, you get told you just accept the status quo as unfixable and only want to focus on the minutiae.
 
I personally think Bernie probably does have an idea of how he'll accomplish his goals, but he is holding his tongue at this stage because any action to achieve his goal is bound to be unpopular. You don't break up companies without causing pain to a lot of people.

I'm just an outsider though (registered independent and have decided not to register Democrat to try to influence the primary), but if I were him, that's what I'd be doing.

So he is not telling the democratic voters what his plans are to do the things that democratic voters want and is waiting until later to tell them.

Pretending to be clueless in accomplishing what you have spent your life campaigning for helps you win how?
 
Who do you think will actually make more change? Someone that goes "ALL THINGS ARE VERY WRONG" and runs around like a headless chicken, or someone that goes "I think this little point A and B should function differently, and here's a detailed plan of how we're going to implement those goals."

Your bias is pretty strong here, should try to tune it down, since its full of hyperbole.

Both have their ideas for legislation and both have the same issue that is Senate/House still having a strong enough Republican presence to halt any progress they attempt to make.

Hillary is a known entity, whereas we do not know how Bernie would be able to handle it. Most people want to vote him for his ideals more than practicality. There is nothing wrong with that, especially with the conditions the House will be in.

Opinions like not running an offensive campaign which flip flops once he starts losing? Politically convenient moves like becoming a Democrat for the sole purpose of helping his campaign chances and NOT because he really wants to be a member of the party?


I find this funny considering we all know that running 3rd party with any hopes of winning is impossible. U.S political system isn't for it right now. It is not even just inconvenient, it is just impossible.

Also if he runs 3rd party, he WILL split the votes, making it much more likely for Democrats to lose. He knows this and that is why he won't run 3rd party, as too much is at stake for a certain loss for him and a possible loss for the "liberal party" of U.S.
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy.

I did a page back. Here it is again.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007. She said too many people were ignoring warning signs.

"The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street," Clinton said. "It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families."

She gave specific proposals for addressing subprime mortgages, including expanding the role of the Federal Housing Administration, more borrowing options for underprivileged and first-time homebuyers, more safeguards against predatory lending practices and policies intended to prevent foreclosures.

In August that year, she delivered a similar speech about dealing with problems from subprime mortgages. There, she reiterated earlier proposals, and also suggested laws establishing national standards and registration for loan brokers, as well as regulations on lenders.

"I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine," she said. "You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here.’ "

It didn’t become law, but Clinton sponsored a bill to implement these policies in September 2007.

The first time she mentioned derivatives was in a November 2007 speech in Iowa. (A derivative is a financial product that allows investors to hedge against price fluctuations in an underlying asset.)

"We need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products," she said. "You can't let Wall Street send the bill to your street with the bright ideas that just don't work out. Derivatives and products like them are posing real risks to families, as Wall Street writes down tens of billions of dollars in investments. Companies are taking the loss of a billion here and a billion there simply because the securities they own are worth less than they thought."

In the same speech, she spoke again of the risky lending that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, adding that she called on then-President George W. Bush to convene a conference to find a solution.

And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a 21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent."

This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, according to the New York Times.

At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products, establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer protections.

Yes the bill she sponsored didn't pass but again I think that's an unfair standard to hold her to. She can't control how congress votes.
 
Hillary helped pass the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill. She was a major supporter of it, voted for it, and still supports the restrictions that were in place before Citizen's United (a legal battle over how much money people could spend on anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda, btw). She promises to nominate SC justices who would repeal the SC ruling, and there's no reason to believe she wouldn't keep her promise.

McCain Feingold just changed the way donors contribute. It didn't reduce political financing, they just funnel via Super PACs now. And reducing attack ads was the second element doesn't change anything with donors.

But that wasn't the question. What affected the actual donors.

i.e. What did she pass that impacts a company like Goldman Sachs or Time Warner negatively without a corresponding larger positive legislation introduced to override the negative?
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy. It's not actually 90% as mentioned above with Bernie Sanders because me, and a lot of people, believe most of what Hillary is pushing is lip service. TPP will get passed. Net Neutrality will be defeated. Insurance companies will increase their costs. Etc. Etc.

Hey, you got a response from blackw0lf just a page or two back.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

Hillary in 2007 proposed regulations on the financial industry, as in actually sponsored legislation as Senator. It didn't pass but I don't see how you can fault Hillary on that.

Also Hillary's central idea for campaign finance reform is matching small donor donations, which would be highly effective and reduce need to rely on large financial donors

But then it actually has facts, a link referencing those facts, etc.. The things that make a good post good. It is obvious that is all anathema to you so it is understandable how you completely missed it.
 
Your bias is pretty strong here, should try to tune it down, since its full of hyperbole.

Both have their ideas for legislation and both have the same issue that is Senate/House still having a strong enough Republican presence to halt any progress they attempt to make.

Hillary is a known entity, whereas we do not know how Bernie would be able to handle it. Most people want to vote him for his ideals more than practicality. There is nothing wrong with that, especially with the conditions the House will be in.

No they don't. That's what this interview is about. Bernie doesn't appear to actually have any idea what his Wall Street reform actually looks like either judiciously, legislatively, or as action from the executive branch, that isn't a talking point from his stump speech
 
I personally think Bernie probably does have an idea of how he'll accomplish his goals, but he is holding his tongue at this stage because any action to achieve his goal is bound to be unpopular. You don't break up companies without causing pain to a lot of people.

I'm just an outsider though (registered independent and have decided not to register Democrat to try to influence the primary), but if I were him, that's what I'd be doing.

That's fine in the early days of a campaign, but we're nearing the end of the primary and gearing up for GE mode. This is the time where candidates should start adding details to their proposals and be more specific about the changes they want to bring about. This lets the voter make a more informed decision about who they are voting for.
 
No they don't. That's what this interview is about. Bernie doesn't appear to actually have any idea what his Wall Street reform actually looks like either judiciously, legislatively, or as action from the executive branch, that isn't a talking point from his stump speech
Yeah. It's very telling how the Sanders supporters here are blatantly ignoring the one example of legislation he made on the issue that clearly showed he had no fucking idea how it would actually be enacted
 
McCain Feingold just changed the way donors contribute.

But that wasn't the question. What affected the actual donors.

i.e. What did she pass that impacts a company like Goldman Sachs or Time Warner negatively without a corresponding larger positive legislation introduced to override the negative?

I guess Dodd-Frank doesn't count because she was Secretary of State at the time and, while she heavily supported it and helped push its creation and passage, couldn't vote on it herself?

I'm moving the goal-posts for you, don't worry about it.
 
In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

Step 1: make list of banks
Step 2: break them up

I think there's a few (dozen) steps missing in there, Bernie...
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy. It's not actually 90% as mentioned above with Bernie Sanders because me, and a lot of people, believe most of what Hillary is pushithng is lip service. TPP will get passed. Net Neutrality will be defeated. Insurance companies will increase their costs. Etc. Etc.

Well that's pretty easy isn't it.

Since she's in the pocket of Wall Street. She is proposing a weighted risk fee based on the banks exposure. This is essentially a tax on behaviour.

The bill she sponsored in 2007 also would have put significant regulatory oversight on subprime lending and as well as the packaged sell on of mortgage debt.

Introduced in Senate (09/27/2007)

American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to require certain mortgage originators or lenders with primary responsibility for underwriting an assessment on a home mortgage loan to include a borrower's ability to repay certain associated costs.

Requires a mortgage broker to clearly disclose its relationship to the borrower.

Directs the federal banking agencies to establish a nationwide registry and database system in which all mortgage brokers in the United States must register.

Eliminates prepayment penalties for home mortgages.

Instructs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make grants to state governments and tribal organizations to assist: (1) programs established for foreclosure mitigation; and (2) housing trust funds supporting low- and moderate-income housing.

Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to direct the HUD Secretary to establish an annual goal for each government-sponsored enterprise to identify and assist homeowners at risk of default or foreclosure on their mortgage, but who would be able to stabilize the situation with fixed rate 30- or 40-year mortgages.

Authorizes appropriations for mortgage fraud enforcement and prosecution.

that's the summary btw not the actual bill.
 
Well that's pretty easy isn't it.

Since she's in the pocket of Wall Street. She is proposing a weighted risk fee based on the banks exposure. This is essentially a tax on behaviour.

The bill she sponsored in 2007 also would have put significant regulatory oversight on subprime lending and as well as the packaged sell on of mortgage debt.

"If only people had listened to Hillary back in 2007!"

Said no Bernie Sanders supporter ever unfortunately.
 
Wow. I mean, just, holy shit. Bernie Sanders is more dangerous for this country than Donald Trump.

I wouldn't go that far.

Bernie Sanders's platform is a combination of empty populism and actual big ideas about the problems facing the country (just with no feasible plans to do anything about it).

Donald Trump's platform is a combination of empty populism and thinly-veiled racism.

I don't want either of these two to be president but the first choice is vastly preferable.
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy. It's not actually 90% as mentioned above with Bernie Sanders because me, and a lot of people, believe most of what Hillary is pushing is lip service. TPP will get passed. Net Neutrality will be defeated. Insurance companies will increase their costs. Etc. Etc.


I took a different approach here:

I googled her voting record and wondered how long it would take it to find one as a zero-information voter with your current information set, since you've brought up that she has had donations from Telecom companies.


Here it is:

http://votesmart.org/bill/7277/2050...n-intelligence-surveillance-bill#.VwQPsxIrLy8

Vote to adopt an amendment removing immunity for telecom companies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

Sanders was a Co-Sponsor, by the way.




Took me 2 and a half minutes.
 
I guess Dodd-Frank doesn't count because she was Secretary of State at the time and, while she heavily supported it and helped push its creation and passage, couldn't vote on it herself?

I'm moving the goal-posts for you, don't worry about it.

Dodd-Frank is a joke. If you read my earlier post, you'll see an example of why I think it is (and Elizabeth Warren grilling the Fed on how Dodd-Frank isn't being effective on the Living Will act side of it).

You should check out Canadian's banking regulations and Bank Act to see how it's done.

And again, what have the Clintons actually passed? I know they passed NAFTA and that's been fantastic for you guys.
 
I've always found Bernie to be lacking in details. He has grand unrealistic ideas that make for good speeches. That's probably why he's so appealing to young people.
 
I find this funny considering we all know that running 3rd party with any hopes of winning is impossible. U.S political system isn't for it right now. It is not even just inconvenient, it is just impossible.

Also if he runs 3rd party, he WILL split the votes, making it much more likely for Democrats to lose. He knows this and that is why he won't run 3rd party, as too much is at stake for a certain loss for him and a possible loss for the "liberal party" of U.S.

He is running as a Dem because it was the only chance he had to get attention, and he admitted as such months ago.

If he had ran 3rd party he would have made zero impact. By running as a Dem he has gotten to use the publicity generated by the DNC primary, all the voter databases and models constructed by the DNC, received financial assistance from the DNC (including funds they acquired from Wall St. donations), etc. etc.. He's admitted himself that this was the only way to get attention.

Also, if he really believed in the "revolution" and really believed in what he's said about campaign finance reform he would have ran as a 3rd party, since if the "revolution" isn't some made up Reddit bullshit he'd have pulled enough of the electorate to reach public campaign financing for his new 3rd party, ensuring a viable 3rd alternative for at least the next election cycle.

But he didn't. Because it's all about Bernie. And Bernie telling you why he's right about everything. And how he'll just make things happen. Because of the "revolution".
 
OK this is absolutely my last response because I have a SCRUM meeting in 2 hours I have to prepare for.

The DNC has done an awful job of scheduling debates, has not made a push at all for voter registration compared to the past, has blocked Bernie from accessing Voter Data files (and later Debbie's opponent in Florida as well), has not made a stink about the myriad of voter suppression incidents and party memberships disappearing (which we are seeing happen in New York already, and data doesn't just disappear from databases), pulling back the ban on PAC donations that Obama put into place after being elected, and members have been caught raising money for Hillary.

Like I said, I really don't despise Hillary the way some people in here despise Bernie. But I do share that hatred for mainstream media and Debbie Schultz.

1. How has the debate schedule been awful, and if it is, that's not all on the DNC. The networks were far less interested in scheduling Democratic debates this cycle than Republican ones.

2. This could be a reasonable complaint, but one can always argue for more registration efforts, and they have been hindered lately by suppression.

3. Bernie's campaign accessed information they should not have, and as a result they had a 24 hour lockout. It is standard procedure to lockout any offending campaign, and it was for a day, not actually a big deal no matter what they say.

4. They have been doing they best they can on these fronts.

5. A reasonable complaint, but it's basically MAD out there and it was a major disadvantage.

6. Members are allowed to campaign.

The DNC is not this all powerful, monolithic origination. Its resources are VERY limited, and its full of good people doing the best they can for long hours and little pay.

Source: My many years of working with the DNC.
 
I've always found Bernie to be lacking in details. He has grand unrealistic ideas that make for good speeches. That's probably why he's so appealing to young people.

Honestly, him and Trump are a show of the unfortunate tendency people have to care more about charisma and empty talk than actual plans, logic, or qualifications. If ideals were all you needed to be qualified for a presidential position, than tons of people would be qualified. But ideals are worthless if you can't act on them effectively
 
Dodd-Frank is a joke. If you read my earlier post, you'll see an example of why I think it is (and Elizabeth Warren grilling the Fed on how Dodd-Frank isn't being effective on the Living Will act side of it).

You should check out Canadian's banking regulations and Bank Act to see how it's done.

And again, what have the Clintons actually passed? I know they passed NAFTA and that's been fantastic for you guys.

NAFTA has been extremely lucrative for the United States yes. Some people lost jobs, others gained jobs.

Also, Dodd-Frank has been extremely effective in reining in financial institutions, as seen by the self imposed breakup of MetLife and the GE Finance arm.
 
Dodd-Frank is a joke. If you read my earlier post, you'll see an example of why I think it is (and Elizabeth Warren grilling the Fed on how Dodd-Frank isn't being effective on the Living Will act side of it).

You should check out Canadian's banking regulations and Bank Act to see how it's done.

And again, what have the Clintons actually passed? I know they passed NAFTA and that's been fantastic for you guys.



Shoot for the stars, and your goalposts may reach the moon.
 
Tabris is just going to keep ignoring posts that prove him wrong, or moving the goalposts. I was going to write up a substantive response to him but it is pointless, I'm sorry to say.

I really do wonder where all this vitriol against Hillary comes from.
 
Tabris is just going to keep ignoring posts that prove him wrong, or moving the goalposts. I was going to write up a substantive response to him but it is pointless, I'm sorry to say.

I really do wonder where all this vitriol against Hillary comes from.

Yeah, especially since he claims to not even be American (which I am increasingly doubting)
 
I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy. It's not actually 90% as mentioned above with Bernie Sanders because me, and a lot of people, believe most of what Hillary is pushing is lip service. TPP will get passed. Net Neutrality will be defeated. Insurance companies will increase their costs. Etc. Etc.

Logical fallacies, the post.
 
Tabris is just going to keep ignoring posts that prove him wrong, or moving the goalposts. I was going to write up a substantive response to him but it is pointless, I'm sorry to say.

I really do wonder where all this vitriol against Hillary comes from.

She's been publically attacked by the GOP in America since the 90's and, seeing as she's a powerful older woman, there is a strong misogynistic sentiment running through the negativity as well. That negativity permeates American culture and if you aren't aware enough to do your own research or careful enough to watch your sources you will get the idea that Hillary is somehow going to be bad for the country despite all she's done and is saying she will do.

It's hard for the general voting populace to not be influenced by over 2 decades of vitriolic attacks against her character.

It must be even harder for people outside of the country to form an opinion about her other than one that is colored by her attackers rather than her substance and actions.
 
Tabris is just going to keep ignoring posts that prove him wrong, or moving the goalposts. I was going to write up a substantive response to him but it is pointless, I'm sorry to say.

I really do wonder where all this vitriol against Hillary comes from.

It's Tabris..

Yeah, especially since he claims to not even be American (which I am increasingly doubting)
He isn't. He's Canadian.

All the reason that's need to shut down the Canadian border.
 
Wow. I mean, just, holy shit. Bernie Sanders is more dangerous for this country than Donald Trump.

Not at all. Donald Trump would be a rubber stamp for the Republican Congress, Bernie wouldn't and congress would at least be able to fill in the substance.
 
Dodd-Frank is a joke. If you read my earlier post, you'll see an example of why I think it is (and Elizabeth Warren grilling the Fed on how Dodd-Frank isn't being effective on the Living Will act side of it).

You should check out Canadian's banking regulations and Bank Act to see how it's done.

And again, what have the Clintons actually passed? I know they passed NAFTA and that's been fantastic for you guys.

Buddy, we have one state that generates 50% more GDP than Canada.

We're also the global center of economic activity, with almost all global markets based on the dollar. Other than bulk maple syrup purchases what market uses the loonie?

Also, NAFTA has worked out pretty well. I'd say maybe you should learn about it before deriding it, but since you haven't done that with a single goddamn thing in this thread it would be unfair to expect you to start now.

At this point I'm just assuming you're a troll.
 
I just really hate the way she voted on the Iraq invasion. I just can't vote for someone who was on the wrong side of that war vote.

That's such a narrow issue though. Many people voted for the war based on false information that they did not know was false. They voted in good conscience thinking there was an imminent threat.

I respect your right to make your choice but it's such an odd thing to single out considering all that's happened since.
 
I find this funny considering we all know that running 3rd party with any hopes of winning is impossible. U.S political system isn't for it right now. It is not even just inconvenient, it is just impossible.

Also if he runs 3rd party, he WILL split the votes, making it much more likely for Democrats to lose. He knows this and that is why he won't run 3rd party, as too much is at stake for a certain loss for him and a possible loss for the "liberal party" of U.S.

You should find it funny. I don't disagree really with any of the things you said in regards to trying to run third party. You seem to think I don't understand WHY he did it.

I know WHY he decided to go ahead and sign with Dems; it was solely to give him a better chance at winning, not to mention the other perks that come from being a part of the 'establishment'.

What I don't forgive is pretending you aren't a hypocrite when you rail against said system, then JOIN it when it's convenient, which is exactly what the hell he did.

Have your revolution; but don't balk at me calling a spade a spade. He signed dem solely to benefit himself while decrying the 'establishment' to this very day for being bought and paid for or otherwise corrupt. His supporters don't get to claim that he is above playing politics when convenient when we have concrete proof of him doing exactly that.

That may work for conservatives, but it ain't working on the left.

Wow. I mean, just, holy shit. Bernie Sanders is more dangerous for this country than Donald Trump.


Whoadere. Lets not get loony. He has flaws, just like every politician breathing. Little Ms. "YassQueen" included. But either of them are LEAGUES better than any of the loonies on the right atm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom