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

Status
Not open for further replies.
legacyzero said:
Let me reiterate. Hillary supporters give her a pass. Media gives her a pass.
Click to expand...

That's a generality that doesn't really provide much insight other than frustration with reality not lining up with what you want. Besides, that doesn't even pass the smell test.

Choosing a President is rarely about getting your ideal candidate.
 
Big Baybee said:
How does the media give her a pass?
Click to expand...

From the position of a hardcore /r/s4p Bernie supporter Hillary is a lying corporate puppet who'll change opinions on an issue at the drop of a hat. From that misguided point of view the media has been incredibly nice to Hillary.

The Shadow said:
Let's be real for a second. Sanders doesn't get a free pass. He hardly gets coverage relative to the other candidates. My point, succinctly, is that Hillary and Sanders get challenged constantly for their mis-steps, and Trump gets additional coverage and praise for his "honesty".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...mps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

The Democratic primary has been over for months. Media companies are propping him up as having a chance to still win because a tight race gets better ratings.
 
legacyzero said:
Receipts please
Click to expand...
You could start with the source for this thread with their hillarious Sanders plugs.
Or Fox News that has been on a constant attack against Clinton since 2007?
How about MSNBC and it's coverage of the campaign or CNN where they're covering the race like it's not over?
If you don't see receipts I couldn't convince you if you were actually drowning in them.
 
legacyzero said:
Receipts please
Click to expand...

Most media is corpratist, which actually isn't what you think it means. It means their #1 goal is to make money, and more money is made if people beleive Sanders vs Clinton is a horse race. Same thing happened with Obama and Romney.
 
The Shadow said:
Let's be real for a second. Sanders doesn't get a free pass. He hardly gets coverage relative to the other candidates. My point, succinctly, is that Hillary and Sanders get challenged constantly for their mis-steps, and Trump gets additional coverage and praise for his "honesty".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...mps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

To be fair, trump is very, VERY good at generating news and ratings and his supporters don't care while the others already hate him.
There's no reason to cover his missteps, although that changed with the abortion comment that was fairly largely covered by the media.
 
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
That's a generality that doesn't really provide much insight other than frustration with reality not lining up with what you want. Besides, that doesn't even pass the smell test.

Choosing a President is rarely about getting your ideal candidate.
Click to expand...
Most Hill supporters Ive tried to talk to has, IMO.
 
legacyzero said:
Receipts please
Click to expand...
The subject this very thread is about, for one? The media and particularly the debates could have toasted him on this at any point they wanted, calling him out on it when he goes to his stump speech and pointing out that he's all fluff and no substance and not letting him run away from that? But they didn't, because they wanted the ratings from two serious candidates going at each other and didn't want to kill Sanders prematurely so that could actually happen. Same reason they continue to act like he has any chance at all at this point, despite his huge delegate deficit--more ratings from a perceived close race. Sanders has been treated with huge kids gloves this entire race.
 
The Shadow said:
Yes, let's generalize to make an argument and feel good about ourselves. Damn, our Dem farts just smell better than everyone elses.

Look at all the racist, misogynistic, old, white........college educated women and minorities that support Trump in this video.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...o-understand-donald-trump-supporters-20160315
Click to expand...

Women and minorities can be racist. Some of the most racist people I have ever met have been minorities actually. You're not nessesarilly racist if you support the GOP. You are racist if you support Trump because he's running on an openly racist platform.
 
legacyzero said:
Receipts please

The amount of coverage she gets. Softball questions. Not reporting on her inacuracies, special interests, flip flops, etc.

Bernie rallies and speeches are ignored, especially on CNN.
Click to expand...
Holy shit. And I thought only teapers lived in alternate universe. Did you start paying attention to politics since Bernie entered? However, find me a Hillary interview as amateaur hour as this nydailynews one with Bernie. You wont.
 
First, I'm not sure why you think college educated people can't be racist.

Second, you seem to have missed the actual point ie GOP voters ignoring that Trump is a moron isn't something to point to as an example to follow.

And third, the original wording gave me the impression that you were talking about amorphous GAF anyway. Not the GOP circus.
 
T'Zariah said:
Again: How do you punish the banks for something they did that wasn't illegal.

I STILL haven't gotten a concrete answer for that.
Click to expand...

By not bailing them out. That has to be the short answer right. What the U.S. Government did by bailing out the big banks and other institutions is anti capitalist. Capitalism dictates that the strongest survive and these institutions would be dead without the assistance of the U.S. Government.

On a more individual basis. Famed gangster Al Capone eventually went to jail for Tax Evasion, and not the murders he committed. Even if nothing untoward was done in the case of selling questionable mortgages ( unlikely as at bare minimum it would likely breach a banks duty of care responsabilities to either their customers or shareholders) There is still likely something that was done elsewhere that was illegal. (Cocaine is still illegal right?)
 
The Shadow said:
Crazy, isn't it?

He's probably the most honest politician to take the stage and people piss on him for it. But let's give Trump a free pass who can't give a clear answer on any of his planned policies.
Click to expand...

Sanders is out of his element when he pounds the table about fraud or regulators putting their foot in these institutions' butt commensurate with the risk they pose and the economic damage they've caused. He just doesn't have the substance needed to bring it up as much as he does. He looks silly without bringing in folks with federal experience breaking up financial institutions or are familiar with the details of some the frauds he's discussing into his circle. Obviously, people like a former senior vice president of Citigroup or a distinguished SEC lawyer could help him out of this jam, but he goes at it alone. Which is sad and a shame for his supporters. That's why most should vote Hillary because Sanders is the wrong guy.
 
I support bernie but all along ive always thought that his promise of breaking up the biggest banks in the states is something he cannot do if he gets to be the presdient even if were to be 2 terms. This is just going to be one hell of a fight legally. Especially if you consider how Deeply ingrained the influence thse banks in our current congress and senate.. Its just not going to happen. Though Even with this pipe dream of bernie has i still think he's better than Hillary overall. Because i do belive bernie is the best decision maker among the remaining presidential candidates.

Hillary ain't a bad choice for president too. She's just going to be more sameish and way less trustworthy than Obama.
 
jdstorm said:
By not bailing them out. That has to be the short answer right. What the U.S. Government did by bailing out the big banks and other institutions is anti capitalist. Capitalism dictates that the strongest survive and these institutions would be dead without the assistance of the U.S. Government.
Click to expand...

That's what Hoover thought too.

Thankfully, this time we went another way.
 
jdstorm said:
By not bailing them out. That has to be the short answer right. What the U.S. Government did by bailing out the big banks and other institutions is anti capitalist. Capitalism dictates that the strongest survive and these institutions would be dead without the assistance of the U.S. Government.
Click to expand...
Fine, we dont bail out big banks. We let Wall St collapse. What's next? CBO predicted an UE rate of 12% as a start, if we did nothing. That's not even counting billions of dollars in savings, 401k and retirement funds being lost. This is just scratching the surface. Would you be still ok with inaction?
 
jdstorm said:
By not bailing them out. That has to be the short answer right. What the U.S. Government did by bailing out the big banks and other institutions is anti capitalist. Capitalism dictates that the strongest survive and these institutions would be dead without the assistance of the U.S. Government.
Click to expand...

So your plan is to punish them by destroying the economy and fucking over millions of people that had nothing to do with what they did? Yea, that makes sense.
 
RustyNails said:
Fine, we dont bail out big banks. We let Wall St collapse. What's next? CBO predicted an UE rate of 12% as a start, if we did nothing. That's not even counting billions of dollars in savings, 401k and retirement funds being lost. This is just scratching the surface. Would you be still ok with inaction?
Click to expand...

The idea that giving money to the financial institutions that caused the biggest financial meltdown and biggest economic depression and loss of wealth since the great depression is just as radical as giving that money directly back to the entire population. The devastation that people with mortgages faced after the crush is just surreal and most of the wealth the economy has recovered has gone towards the just a small percentage of the population.
 
Las7 said:
The idea that giving money to the financial institutions that caused the biggest financial meltdown and biggest economic depression and loss of wealth since the great depression is just as radical as giving that money directly back to the entire population. The devastation that people with mortgages faced after the crush is just surreal and most of the wealth the economy has recovered has gone towards the just a small percentage of the population.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question, though.
 
RustyNails said:
Holy shit. And I thought only teapers lived in alternate universe. Did you start paying attention to politics since Bernie entered? However, find me a Hillary interview as amateaur hour as this nydailynews one with Bernie. You wont.
Click to expand...

I really hope that people start to see why we've been so critical of Sanders. The guy has been fostering the same disassociation from reality that the GOP and Fox News rely on.
 
Kyzer said:
Fuck. I don't know. Damn.. am I the progressive equivalent of a Trump supporter ? Because I really have no idea...and I just want this guy who wants the same things I want to go beat DC with a stick until something cool happens.

I'm definitely being more honest than any political supporter has ever been.

Feels bad man. I never really stumped for Bernie before this thread but had him in my heart. I've yet to be concretely dismayed, but my belief in my own ability to really research what I'm talking about has diminished.

I think I'm more invested in the Republican race than our own sides for some reason too


Who am I

What am I fighting for
Click to expand...

I totally get wanting someone to publicly rail on issues you care about. My father in law is A Trump supporter specifically because he doesn't like how people ignore (right or wrong) things like terrorism or immigration. He doesn't believe in any of Trump's plans. It's a pure message vote.

In that way, yes, it sounds like you identify with Bernie for similar reasons. It's pretty clear from groups like the Tax Policy Center that his plans (if he passed 100% of it) aren't going to work out like he wants them to. And that's okay! If he intends to be a message candidate, there's nothing wrong with beating this drum. But he's been going negative recently, and his campaign staff is openly arguing for the win. I suspect this is why he's getting flak now. The media tends to let message candidates run without much interrogation. It's understood that they don't have well-thought plans. Bernie honestly made a mistake with his public campaign message recently. He's argued that he's a serious, go-all-the-way candidate, and I don't think he's ready for the media scrutiny that comes with that.
 
Las7 said:
The idea that giving money to the financial institutions that caused the biggest financial meltdown and biggest economic depression and loss of wealth since the great depression is just as radical as giving that money directly back to the entire population. The devastation that people with mortgages faced after the crush is just surreal and most of the wealth the economy has recovered has gone towards the just a small percentage of the population.
Click to expand...

A lot of money was given directly to the population, at least as much was given to the banks if not much more, in the form of direct tax credits number thousands of dollars. Direct funding of the banks happened very little and most of the money spent by the government after the crisis was spent on making sure the markets were still liquid. This was done so that a chain reaction of ill-liquidity wouldn't start and end up with you making a run on your bank.
 
Kin5290 said:
You didn't answer the question, though.
Click to expand...

Other options weren't seriously considered.

marrec said:
A lot of money was given directly to the population, at least as much was given to the banks if not much more, in the form of direct tax credits number thousands of dollars. Direct funding of the banks happened very little and most of the money spent by the government after the crisis was spent on making sure the markets were still liquid. This was done so that a chain reaction of ill-liquidity wouldn't start and end up with you making a run on your bank.
Click to expand...

You have illustrated my point how the money could have been spend in it's entirety, the Government had leverage didn't really use it to substantially change the situation.
 
jdstorm said:
By not bailing them out. That has to be the short answer right. What the U.S. Government did by bailing out the big banks and other institutions is anti capitalist. Capitalism dictates that the strongest survive and these institutions would be dead without the assistance of the U.S. Government.

On a more individual basis. Famed gangster Al Capone eventually went to jail for Tax Evasion, and not the murders he committed. Even if nothing untoward was done in the case of selling questionable mortgages ( unlikely as at bare minimum it would likely breach a banks duty of care responsabilities to either their customers or shareholders) There is still likely something that was done elsewhere that was illegal. (Cocaine is still illegal right?)
Click to expand...

What? Are you fucking serious?

If GWB had let the banks fail, then we would've had a depression as bad, if not WORSE than the one in the 1930s due to the trillions of more assets that fail. In the 1930s the Depression was felt worldwide, even though we were literally at the baby steps of globalization.

Now? With entire economies connected at the hip? There would've been extreme economic meltdown, and depending on how bad it got, you could've had riots, sky high unemployment, and insane amounts of debt.

Obama (and, begrudgingly, to a lesser extent, Bush for TARP) doesn't get anywhere near enough credit for the disaster he avoided.
 
Lol of all the crazy shit in this thread, we have people saying acting hasn't been favored by the media and given far more air time?

Zornack said:
The Democratic primary has been over for months. Media companies are propping him up as having a chance to still win because a tight race gets better ratings.
Click to expand...

Ok, so ignoring the link the other dude posted, here is the amount of air time given to Sanders vs Trump before "the primary was over."

Ccg5cp1VIAEs8YK.jpg:large


I don't know why anyone would defend the news networks. They are probably the biggest reason Trump has built the movement he has.
 
Dangansona said:
Lol of all the crazy shit in this thread, we have people saying acting hasn't been favored by the media and given far more air time?



Ok, so ignoring the link the other dude posted, here is the amount of air time given to Sanders vs Trump before "the primary was over."

Ccg5cp1VIAEs8YK.jpg:large


I don't know why anyone would defend the news networks. They are probably the biggest reason Trump has built the movement he has.
Click to expand...

Bluntly, the frontrunner in the Republican nomination saying Mexicans are murderers, we should build a wall, 9/11 was George W. Bush's fault, he could shoot a guy in 5th avenue and his poll numbers would go up, and so on and so forth is more newsworthy than a guy giving a perfectly normal leftie speech about how evil the banks and corporations are.
 
Crayons said:
Bernie admits when he doesn't know something and gets all this flack meanwhile Trump just bullshits things as he goes along and is praised
Click to expand...

It's obvious people here want to prop up Clinton who I can't stand along with Trump. Might be time to move to Canada.
 
Dangansona said:
Lol of all the crazy shit in this thread, we have people saying acting hasn't been favored by the media and given far more air time?



Ok, so ignoring the link the other dude posted, here is the amount of air time given to Sanders vs Trump before "the primary was over."

Ccg5cp1VIAEs8YK.jpg:large


I don't know why anyone would defend the news networks. They are probably the biggest reason Trump has built the movement he has.
Click to expand...

Giving more coverage isn't favoring.

He's the Republican front-runner frequently saying and doing outrageous shit. This is exceedingly simple.

Also, find a better source than RT.
 
Dangansona said:
Ok, so ignoring the link the other dude posted, here is the amount of air time given to Sanders vs Trump before "the primary was over."

Ccg5cp1VIAEs8YK.jpg:large


I don't know why anyone would defend the news networks. They are probably the biggest reason Trump has built the movement he has.
Click to expand...

Let's be real, Trump is the frontrunner for the GOP and Bernie never had a chance at winning. It's like saying, "How come no one's covering the Green Party's candidate," in the general.

Also LOL @ RT
 
legacyzero said:
Most Hill supporters Ive tried to talk to has, IMO.
Click to expand...

I think in some cases, she simply represents the best chance at preventing something that left leaning voters can't live with. When you look at the Republicans lined up for the job, it's time to get serious about what can be done. That's just one aspect of the contrast between Sanders and Clinton. Clinton is a proven commodity and has far more accomplishments alongside an aptitude for understanding and communicating expertise on a wide range of complex issues.
 
hawk2025 said:
You guys won't agree on this. He obviously has a far stronger than average delusion of objectivity. It's a strong and unverifiable claim without significant and laborious research, and so the dissonance does not have to be resolved. He perceives the "media pass", ergo it exists in his mind, and no amount of discussion will change that.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f461cb70-f6c1-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132.html
Click to expand...
Its insane to me that such a big slice of the Democratic party now believes anything and everything said on Fox News as long as it pertains to Hillary Clinton.
 
hawk2025 said:
Giving more coverage isn't favoring.

He's the Republican front-runner frequently saying and doing outrageous shit. This is exceedingly simple.

Also, find a better source than RT.
Click to expand...

More coverage does not have to equal favoring, but it is clear that the mantra "There is no such thing as bad publicity" largely holds up considering his success.

B-Dubs said:
Also LOL @ RT
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ people, I don't go to RT to get my news. It's just verifiable numbers. If you want a better source go to the poster's link to the New York Times on the last page. I posted it because apparently the discrepancy doesn't matter now because the "primaries are over."
 
hawk2025 said:
Giving more coverage isn't favoring.

He's the Republican front-runner frequently saying and doing outrageous shit. This is exceedingly simple.

Also, find a better source than RT.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders is a socialist, with no ties to the party, who was an unknown quantity for the Nation an year ago, outraising and pushing a candidate everyone was so afraid for that a popular VP stepped aside, that the whole DNC had decided well ahead of time there was no need for debates, that the majority of super-delegates pledged to her before any votes were cast.
The amount of time media has spend on this story is pathetic really.

JesseEwiak said:
Bluntly, the frontrunner in the Republican nomination saying Mexicans are murderers, we should build a wall, 9/11 was George W. Bush's fault, he could shoot a guy in 5th avenue and his poll numbers would go up, and so on and so forth is more newsworthy than a guy giving a perfectly normal leftie speech about how evil the banks and corporations are.
Click to expand...

And there are still people who are hearing his speech and message for the first time this month.
 
Las7 said:
Bernie Sanders is a socialist, with no ties to the party, who was an unknown quantity for the Nation an year ago, outraising and pushing a candidate everyone was so afraid for that a popular VP stepped aside, that the whole DNC had decided well ahead of time there was no need for debates, that the majority of super-delegates pledged to her before any votes were cast.
The amount of time media has spend on this story is pathetic really.
Click to expand...

Biden did not step aside because of Bernie, let's be fucking real here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex
2
62
3K
jason10mm replied
Brian Cox explains the Fermi Paradox (why we have not yet seen evidence of intelligent alien life)
2
68
4K
GloveSlap replied
  • Poll
Do you have your phone on silent? I can’t remember the last time I heard a phone ring?
39
1K
GymWolf replied
Is Dave Chappelle the greatest 'stand-up' comedian of our time?
2
70
463
INC replied
It's legal to download pirated material if you don't seed
37
2K
adamsapple replied
Top Bottom