FloydtheFathead
Member
So does Tabris.
Sanders on breaking up banks "I have not studied... the legal implications of that"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
balladofwindfishes
Member
No seriously. Floyd and I have dealt with him in NFL Gaf, he's Candian.
No really, he's in SE Asia on vacation with one of his lady friends who he completely views as only a friend. Floyd and I had to hear about it for a straight month in February. And he recently got back from being banned from drunk spamming in the NFL Gaf thread in the middle of this vacation.
In fairness, Obama didn't vote for the Iraq War.
Box of Kittens
Banned
If I had to name things I knew about Tabris before posting in this thread, "lives in Vancouver" and "travels to Asia a lot" would be among the first two. I disagree with pretty much everything he's posting in this thread but I'm pretty sure he's telling the truth.
If anyone wants to know more about the 2007-08 financial crisis and the major players both before and after it. The reasons for it's happening and the ramifications thereof, I suggest you read After the Music Stopped: The Financial Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead
My major takeaway from this thread is that most people still don't know the causes of the 2008 Crisis or what the government did to solve it.
My major takeaway from this thread is that most people still don't know the causes of the 2008 Crisis or what the government did to solve it.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Bookmarked. Thanks.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
I thought everyone accepted by now that JP Morgan didn't need to be bailed out and was largely forced to take the funds? Weird always using them as an example.
legacyzero
Banned
LOL seriously?
FloydtheFathead
Member
Hindl, we need to stop his name.. You know he searches for it.. He's GAF's version of Beetlejuice.
Only kinda related, but not thread worthy: http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/s...ault&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=twitter
Still funny
Still funny
Yes, I completely said all of this, and even then he is an unknown entity compared to Hillary Clinton. He was going in at a disadvantage from the start.
The rest of your post makes no sense. We already established that running 3rd party with any chance or hope (even a fraction of a chance) of winning or gaining attention was not possible. Why would he run 3rd party which has so few resources in a 2 party political system? Do you realize the odds against him if he tried that? What you are asking for are generational changes in U.S political system. lol
In order to start a revolution, one at least needs a podium to do so, that is, a starting position.
It already accomplished somewhat of his goal.. Strong ideals to try increasing motivation in the populace. Though it is not strong enough to beat out Hillary, who already had a major advantage from the get-go.
When I say "practicality", I mean how effective Hillary and Bernie can be in passing legislation that their respective supporters desire. Many who vote Bernie realize that voting him is mainly making a statement, same as those voting Trump. Except Trump's will lead to regressive foreign, economic, and social policies, which will be detrimental to U.S's position in this world. At least the thing Bernie wants are right and actually obtainable for a nation such as U.S
You are talking about this specific issue, I was talking about his other ones too. I am not a Bernie supporter specifically for the "too big to fail" line. I want his economic and social policies which go further than Hillary's judging by their website and the debates so far.
Also if he will be able to get advisers and experts who know how to achieve that, so I am not concerned about it as much. I do not expect a politician to know all of this stuff, even Obama doesn't. He have to consult his advisers every time he issues an executive order.
You all in my opinion are making this out to be way worse than it actually is. After I read through it all, I as well think the OP title is misleading.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/
The Atlantic addressing this interview. Kinda light but retreads arguments here.
The tough sell is his ignorance is substantial. He's been sold as all these things for progressives but has failed at some key moments. BLM, foreign policy, and now, his strong point. You have to question, what issue can he have a nuanced discussion on. I'm not supposed to believe this interview was hastily put together? Is this the regular candidate scrutiny Hillary has enjoyed for some time? Dude pivots like a ballerina.
The Atlantic addressing this interview. Kinda light but retreads arguments here.
The tough sell is his ignorance is substantial. He's been sold as all these things for progressives but has failed at some key moments. BLM, foreign policy, and now, his strong point. You have to question, what issue can he have a nuanced discussion on. I'm not supposed to believe this interview was hastily put together? Is this the regular candidate scrutiny Hillary has enjoyed for some time? Dude pivots like a ballerina.
The problem many of us are identifying is that there is a fundamental ignorance at the core of his stumping for "breaking the banks".
I don't want a cabinet in place to do something that I think shouldn't be done in the first place.
I... wow. If that's for real that's super sad. Seriously the type of bill I'd expect from a middling freshman high school student during a Youth & Gov conference.
You're probably right, but I just wanted to make sure no one was mistaking him for American
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
And we've seen what a reckless cabinet or set of advisors can do. My memory isn't that short. An incompetent chief with an agenda based set of advisors? How about no.
Damerman
Member
Are u fucking kidding me? Why are we acting like bernie got with a committee to put something without with no substance.
The dodd frank was a huge undertaking by two different committees(bank and finance) and it went through various revisions. That post about bernies too big to fail act literally means fuck all about how substantive his plans might be.
Maybe he is vacationing in Perth.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Why do you want to harm people? What is this, the mafia?
While I do think that post you're quoting is ridiculous and hyperbolic to the max, Bernie's Too Big to Fail Act being so substance-less does say how substantive his own plans might be.
Alandrus Sun
Banned
If this were questions on foreign policy, military spending, or the environment, I'd be more willing to give him a pass. But finance reform, and in particular breaking up the banks and hitting Wall Street, has not only been the central platform of his campaign, but it's been his central platform for the past 20+ years. It's a little frightening that in all that time of railing against Wall Street, he seems to have little understanding of how it actually works and little idea of how to realistically regulate them/break them up
Biden did and voting for the Obama/Biden ticket put a much stronger proponent of the Iraq War Resolution than Hillary Clinton as the 2nd in command.
I could see the argument that a President Sanders would cause substantial enough damage to core progressive policy ambitions in universal healthcare and expanded education for all to effectively render them toxic in mainstream elections.
Trump on the other hand would likely get stonewalled by everyone and be ran out of office by the end of his first term. Everyone would feel ashamed of him winning in the first place (except the roughly 10% of violent racists walking among us) but little to no long term harm would be caused.
Conservatism is an inertia free state. You need to fight for progress. Doing so and then delivering flawed, broken results is only enforcing the conservative stereotypes of federal government. Progressives have been working on these causes far longer than Sanders' "revolution" but we only get one shot at the target and Sanders has made it very clear he isn't the guy you want pulling the trigger.
If you understand why he did, then it shouldn't be hard to understand it is not for "convenience", as that just means making things easier. It is because it is impossible at this stage to do anything on a national level as anything other than a Democrat or Republican.
You need a little more than him being forced to do something out of necessity if you want to call him out on political hypocrisy in my view.
FloydtheFathead
Member
True.. We took Ted Cruz for them. They can't give us "Tabby Virus" too.
We should invade if they try to do that.
balladofwindfishes
Member
So Hillary's record in the past is fair game for criticism, but Bernie's is off limits, because of reasons?
Not sure how you took that out of his post, but okay.
Thanks!
backflip10019
Member
It just demonstrates to me how little substance there is to him and his financial policies. He's exactly like Trump: Riling up a particular audience with broad, sweeping statements with little plan to back them up. This is clear to me both from this "bill" and the interview.
same happened when he got asked about his foreign politics last month, he got flustered, repeated several sentences and that was about it.
Damerman
Member
How did you come to this conclusion? I don't like bernies gun stance and i don't like his riggidness when it comes to criticism of his past, but this thread is bullshit. The post about his to big to fail act is bullshit.
A bunch of disingenuous nonsense. People already criticized his tax plans and economists are divided when it comes to his economic policies, but to make fun of his depth by saying that his bill is only two pages long is bullshit.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
How ironic that Hillary Clinton is far more knowledgeable of these issues than Sanders.
He is nothing more than an ideologue. That's it. Every time he releases an actual plan it gets panned, and his only defense is "well of course the establishment doesn't support it!"
He is nothing more than an ideologue. That's it. Every time he releases an actual plan it gets panned, and his only defense is "well of course the establishment doesn't support it!"
mrhyderager
Member
Make it illegal formally, and then punish them.
If we can all agree that something is wrong, it wouldn't be hard to make the leap to legislation against it. It's just a matter of time.
Wait- Calling him out on what is possibly his biggest campaign promise is bullshit? How exactly does that work?
balladofwindfishes
Member
People aren't making fun of his intelligence by posting that bill. They're just reinforcing the view that Bernie is naive on the logistics of the things he's proposing. The same view he gave off in the interview.
It's been a major criticism of his, and his record reinforces it, along with this interview. That he has big ideas, but no plan to implement them.
Looking at his past record of proposed legislation and the policies he put forth is important when picking the leader of the free world. He's going to be a major driver of policy as president, and if his policy amounts to "round them all up, wait a year, then break them up" written on a napkin, that's not any sort of starting place for real policy. A president doesn't propose policy like that, and shouldn't propose policy like that. It's just empty ranting that solves nothing and doesn't do anything. It isn't a starting point and better policy isn't developed from it.
Ideas are cheap. Ideas people aren't paid much, because they're a dime a dozen. It's the people who take those ideas and plan the process around how to produce them, within the confines of logistics, that are the real professionals.
BobTheFork
Member
I completely agree. If Bernie's plan was simply 'I'm going to make some marked improvements for the country and give the president after me a great place to make even more improvements' I'd be right there with him.
Beliefs aren't right and wrong, they are just beliefs. Me thinking that Trump and his supporters are amoral de-humanists doesn't mean much and it doesn't make them wrong just because I think it does.
Just running on the belief that 'the establishment is bad, and I'm anti establishment' doesn't mean much.
And I think anyone totally dismissing this decided to support Bernie no matter what and isn't using any more critical reasoning.
The fact that someone had to drive Bernie up a 15 mile high wall ( 
) to get him to say something kind of weak, the fact that it's about something as agreeable as breaking up the banks that are too big to exist without causing extreme risk for the entire country (as if it's not just an evolution of anti monopoly law, just with more realistic understanding that even a company with competition can be too big and powerful for a country's own good) the fact that people somehow say he is worse than Trump because of it who is the epitome of non-substantive talking points, makes me sick. Very disappointed GAF.
) to get him to say something kind of weak, the fact that it's about something as agreeable as breaking up the banks that are too big to exist without causing extreme risk for the entire country (as if it's not just an evolution of anti monopoly law, just with more realistic understanding that even a company with competition can be too big and powerful for a country's own good) the fact that people somehow say he is worse than Trump because of it who is the epitome of non-substantive talking points, makes me sick. Very disappointed GAF.
Damerman
Member
That he doesn't understand the full ramifications of a bill?
If someone tells you that they understand the full ramafications of any action, you would believe them?
Aaronrules380
Member
the people saying sanders is worse than trump are hyperbolic idiots. But then, so are the sanders supporters saying the exact same thing about HilaryThe fact that someone had to drive Bernie up a 15 mile high wall (
backflip10019
Member
The fact that someone had to drive Bernie up a 15 mile high wall (
If it's as simple as rejiggering anti-monopoly laws, then why didn't Bernie just say that? Why did he immediately point to other folks who would be within his administration or the banks themselves to figure out how they would be broken up? Surely if he had a policy in place, he'd be well-briefed on how to address a relatively simple question. But he didn't. That leads me to believe that there's nothing there. It's an empty claim.
Either that or he's just awful at communicating ideas, which is also absolutely a dangerous thing on the global stage.
Aaronrules380
Member
The fact that he doesn't seem to even consider he ramifications or how to address them, or how to go about implementing his vague ideas is what people are talking about. Obviously nobody knows the full ramifications their actions might have. That doesn't mean it's ok for someone running for one of the world's most important positions to not stop to think about it on their central issue
By "less than nothing" you're referring to Sanders' actual policies I'm assuming?
He has never answered a policy question with meaningful substance. He gives the same stump speech ad nauseum. He has no major legislative accomplishments in decades of time in the House and Senate. What details he has given literally do not add up as responsible and viable frameworks, even assuming experts, the House, and Senate would connect the dots and fill in the picture for him.
It shouldn't have taken this interview to make all of this abundantly clear however, that's been his entire campaign. An ideologue exploiting populist sentiment to self promote.
Pretty sure that's unconstitutional.
How is breaking up banks because they are too big and reconfiguring them not the same thing? If you're talking about literally rejiggering monopoly laws that's not necessarily even how they would do it. It could be new legislation.
Just damn if we literally want a word for word plan of what potential legislation would look like for each candidates proposal.... No candidate has that
And if Bernie is bad at communicating for not being able to foresee unintended consequences (uh...duh?) Then everyone running is.
The fact that someone had to drive Bernie up a 15 mile high wall (
Right, he is a million times better than trump and I'd vote for Bernie in an instant given the choice between the two. But this is a problem for Bernie, there really does seem to be a "substance divide" between him and Clinton. She really seems to have significantly more fleshed out plans for attempting her more modest reforms.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll