• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

excelsiorlef

Member
brianmcdoogle said:
New Yorker's Ryan Lizza retweeted this and I don't know how to embed a Twitter picture without it breaking, but is this really the Sanders campaign's response to the debate finally being set?
Click to expand...

Oh fuck you buddy (Sanders campaign that is). Jesus your campaign is losing and you act like that. Be lucky you even get another debate.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
de Blasio also Tweeted Bernie and said if his excuse was the rally, he would help secure any permits needed for Bernie to hold his rally too.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
JesseEwiak said:
Option C - Decide, "screw it, the Trumpites are going to hate us no matter what" and try to find a white knight?
Click to expand...

I go option C. Clinton's high unfavorables actually give you a shot with Kasich or Ryan. You've got five months to make Trump voters hate HRC so much that they stay Republican. Plus, they give you a better chance of holding the senate.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.

You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.

Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one.

Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.

And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.

You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. Alright? It would be fair for you to say, "Well, Bernie, you got on there that you are strongly concerned about climate change and that we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. What happens to the people in the fossil fuel industry?"

That's a fair question. But the other part of that is if we do not address that issue the planet we’re gonna leave your kids and your grandchildren may not be a particularly healthy or habitable one. So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
Click to expand...

This is trumpesque.

This dudes primary idea is something he had no idea how to accomplish or if he can.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
JesseEwiak said:
So, honest question, if you're a high ranking muckity muck in the GOP, what do you do?

Option A - Let Trump win the nomination, focus entirely on lower ballot races and get as many safe Republican's to deendorse Trump and hope things don't go nuclear for you?

Option B - Push Cruz over the line to 1237 at the convention despite the fact your chance for a victory might actually go down w/ Lyin' Ted? I mean, this is what makes it hard - this isn't a situation where Trump will have 1100 and Rubio will have 900.

Option C - Decide, "screw it, the Trumpites are going to hate us no matter what" and try to find a white knight?
Click to expand...

Option B. Cruz isn't going away until he loses a general election, but Trump would go away after losing the primary (I think). So you bump Trump (jettisoning him from your brand) and you let Cruz get savaged by the Hilldawg in November (jettison him from your 2020 brand). Then whatever person you had in mind for Option C becomes your 2020 nominee.

The thing about GOP strategy at this point is that you need to lay out your assumptions first. If one of those assumptions isn't "We will lose in November to Hillary Clinton" then you're arguing from a bad position already. At this point, it's all about salvaging your relevance as a AAA political party and not some cheap Constitution Party nonsense ;P

Sea Manky said:
NeoXChaos' Gut Is Full Of Spiders - Here's Why: H.A. Goodman
Click to expand...

I laughed XD
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
JesseEwiak said:
So, honest question, if you're a high ranking muckity muck in the GOP, what do you do?

Option A - Let Trump win the nomination, focus entirely on lower ballot races and get as many safe Republican's to deendorse Trump and hope things don't go nuclear for you?

Option B - Push Cruz over the line to 1237 at the convention despite the fact your chance for a victory might actually go down w/ Lyin' Ted? I mean, this is what makes it hard - this isn't a situation where Trump will have 1100 and Rubio will have 900.

Option C - Decide, "screw it, the Trumpites are going to hate us no matter what" and try to find a white knight?
Click to expand...

Option A is the only one where I don't see the party have a significant fraction break off.

So...
 
W

watershed

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
This is trumpesque.

This dudes primary idea is something he had no idea how to accomplish or if he can.
Click to expand...
Its been clear for a while that Bernie is about big ideas and not complex policies. That's part of his appeal to idealists. Its all ideas without complexity or reality.
 
R

royalan

Member
That Bernie Sanders interview is just as bad as the interview Trump just gave in terms of not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
gaugebozo said:
Option A is the only one where I don't see the party have a significant fraction break off. So...

watch
Click to expand...

Option A is literally giving the GOP away to Trump and basically destroying it.

There would be no "maybe next election" if Trump is actually the GOP nomination.
 
T

Tranqueris

Banned
“She said she wants to work to get illegal guns off the street and said it's been part of her work as an elected official to strengthen laws to keep America safe. She said that it's going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the State of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont,” said State Sen. Tim Kennedy, a Democrat from Buffalo.
Click to expand...
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...0/clinton-new-york-criminals-get-guns-vermont

So is this actually a big problem? Or is it like a thing that happens every now and then so it's still technically true?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I don't think option C is plausible with the delegates who will be on the floor and the lack of coordinated strategy by the party elite thus far.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
This is trumpesque.

This dudes primary idea is something he had no idea how to accomplish or if he can.
Click to expand...

The thing I'm really bummed about is that it's pretty clear, reading that interview, that he doesn't seem to know what Dodd-Frank does or how it works.

Dodd-Frank is the biggest financial regulation bill in the last like twenty years! Dodd-Frank is the bill he keeps complaining isn't effective enough! How can he not understand how it works? THIS IS LITERALLY HIS ONE ISSUE

Like, I've seen better commentary on Dodd-Frank from random Bernie supporters in this thread than Bernie provides in that interview.

I'm honestly surprised by that transcript. I assumed that, of all things, Bernie would at least be able to coherently explain how he plans to deal with Wall Street.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
pigeon said:
The thing I'm really bummed about is that it's pretty clear, reading that interview, that he doesn't seem to know what Dodd-Frank does or how it works.

Dodd-Frank is the biggest financial regulation bill in the last like twenty years! Dodd-Frank is the bill he keeps complaining isn't effective enough! How can he not understand how it works? THIS IS LITERALLY HIS ONE ISSUE

Like, I've seen better commentary on Dodd-Frank from random Bernie supporters in this thread than Bernie provides in that interview.

I'm honestly surprised by that transcript. I assumed that, of all things, Bernie would at least be able to coherently explain how he plans to deal with Wall Street.
Click to expand...

he's a mess

- airhorn -
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
TheLostBigBoss said:
Option A is literally giving the GOP away to Trump and basically destroying it.

There would be no "maybe next election" if Trump is actually the GOP nomination.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't there be? Where do all those voters go?

Edit: the worst thing for them would be having an actual party split, even with a non-viable third party. That ruins local, state, all down ticket for years. Their best bet is to try to rebrand (but actually this time). People have short memories, especially when it comes to things they like.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Daily News: Okay. Staying with Wall Street, you've pointed out, that "not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy." Why was that? Why did that happen? Why was there no prosecution?

Sanders: I would suspect that the answer that some would give you is that while what they did was horrific, and greedy and had a huge impact on our economy, that some suggest that...that those activities were not illegal. I disagree. And I think an aggressive attorney general would have found illegal activity.

Daily News: So do you think that President Obama's Justice Department essentially was either in the tank or not as...

Sanders: No, I wouldn’t say they were in the tank. I'm saying, a Sanders administration would have a much more aggressive attorney general looking at all of the legal implications. All I can tell you is that if you have Goldman Sachs paying a settlement fee of $5 billion, other banks paying a larger fee, I think most Americans think, "Well, why do they pay $5 billion?" Not because they're heck of a nice guys who want to pay $5 billion. Something was wrong there. And if something was wrong, I think they were illegal activities.

Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?

Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

Daily News: I'm only pressing because you've made it such a central part of your campaign. And I wanted to know what the mechanism would be to accomplish it.

Sanders: Let me be very clear about this. Alright? Let me repeat what I have said. Maybe you've got a quote there. I do believe that, to a significant degree, the business model of Wall Street is fraud.

And you asked me, you started this discussion off appropriately enough about when I talk about morality. When I talk about it, that's what I think. I think when you have the most powerful financial institutions in this country, whose assets are equivalent to 58% of the GDP of this country, who day after day engage in fraudulent activity, that sets a tone.

That sets a tone for some 10-year-old kid in this country who says, "Look, these people are getting away from it. They're lying. They're cheating. Why can't I do that?"

Daily News: What kind of fraudulent activity are you referring to when you say that?

Sanders: What kind of fraudulent activity? Fraudulent activity that brought this country into the worst economic decline in its history by selling packages of fraudulent, fraudulent, worthless subprime mortgages. How's that for a start?

Selling products to people who you knew could not repay them. Lying to people without allowing them to know that in a year, their interest rates would be off the charts. They would not repay that. Bundling these things. Putting them into packages with good mortgages. That's fraudulent activity.
Click to expand...

And this on Israel is something. He wants to sound left on this and pro-peace but he sounds like someone who can't take a stand is is just spewing workds

Daily News: Good, thank you. So I want to focus you on some international issues, starting with Israel. While speaking forcefully of Israel's need for security, you said that peace will require an end to attacks of all kinds and recognition of Israel's right to exist. Just to be clear, does that mean recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state?

Sanders: Of course…that's the status quo.

Daily News: Okay. You've called not just for a halting construction of so-called settlements on the West Bank, but you've also called for pulling back settlements, just as Israel did in Gaza. Describe the pullback that you have in mind.

Sanders: Well, that's the Israeli government's plan, but I think that right now...I'm not going to run the Israeli government. I've got enough problems trying to be a United States senator or maybe President of the United States.

Daily News: No, but if you are President, you will, I assume, become deeply enmeshed in attempting the peace process.

Sanders: I assume that's something...

Daily News: And where you start on the negotiations is important.

Sanders: Here's the main point that I want to make. I lived in Israel. I have family in Israel. I believe 100% not only in Israel's right to exist, a right to exist in peace and security without having to face terrorist attacks. But from the United States' point of view, I think, long-term, we cannot ignore the reality that you have large numbers of Palestinians who are suffering now, poverty rate off the charts, unemployment off the charts, Gaza remaining a destroyed area. And I think that for long-term peace in that region, and God knows nobody has been successful in that for 60 years, but there are good people on both sides, and Israel is not, cannot, just simply expand when it wants to expand with new settlements. So I think the United States has got to help work with the Palestinian people as well. I think that is the path toward peace.

Daily News: I was talking about something different, though. Expanding settlements is one thing; coming into office as a President who said as a baseline that you want Israel to pull back settlements, that changes the dynamic in the negotiations, and I'm wondering how far and what you want Israel to do in terms of pulling back.

Sanders: Well, again, you're asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer. But I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate.

Daily News: And who makes the call about illegality, in your mind?

Sanders: Well, I think that's based on previous treaties and ideas. I happen to think that those expansions were illegal.

Daily News: Okay, so if we were to find Israeli settlements, so-called settlements, in places that has been designated to be illegal, you would expect Israel to be pulling them back?

Sanders: Israel will make their own decisions. They are a government, an independent nation. But to the degree that they want us to have a positive relationship, I think they're going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians.

Daily News: Okay, but I'm just talking about, you’d be getting involved in the negotiations, and this would be setting a benchmark for the negotiations that you would enter the talks, if you do, having conveyed to both parties, including the Palestinians, that there's a condition here that you want Israel to remove what you described as "illegal settlements." That's going to be the baseline. Now, if you're really...

Sanders: Well, there’s going to be a lot of things on the baselines. There are going to be demands being made of the Palestinian folks as well. When you sit down and negotiate, obviously...

Daily News: And what are those demands?

Sanders: Well, for a start, the absolute condemnation of all terrorist attacks. The idea that in Gaza there were buildings being used to construct missiles and bombs and tunnels, that is not where foreign aid should go. Foreign aid should go to housing and schools, not the development of bombs and missiles.

Daily News: Okay. Now, you have obviously condemned Hamas for indiscriminate rocket attacks and the construction of the military tunnels. But you've also criticized Israel for what you described as a disproportionate response.

Sanders: Yep.

Daily News: And I'm going to look at 2014, which was the latest conflict. What should Israel have done instead?

Sanders: You're asking me now to make not only decisions for the Israeli government but for the Israeli military, and I don't quite think I'm qualified to make decisions. But I think it is fair to say that the level of attacks against civilian areas...and I do know that the Palestinians, some of them, were using civilian areas to launch missiles. Makes it very difficult. But I think most international observers would say that the attacks against Gaza were indiscriminate and that a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed. Look, we are living, for better or worse, in a world of high technology, whether it's drones out there that could, you know, take your nose off, and Israel has that technology. And I think there is a general belief that, with that technology, they could have been more discriminate in terms of taking out weapons that were threatening them.

Daily News: Do you support the Palestinian leadership's attempt to use the International Criminal Court to litigate some of these issues to establish that, in their view, Israel had committed essentially war crimes?

Sanders: No.

Daily News: Why not?

Sanders: Why not?

Daily News: Why not, why it...

Sanders: Look, why don't I support a million things in the world? I'm just telling you that I happen to believe...anybody help me out here, because I don't remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?

Daily News: I think it's probably high, but we can look at that.

Sanders: I don't have it in my number...but I think it's over 10,000. My understanding is that a whole lot of apartment houses were leveled. Hospitals, I think, were bombed. So yeah, I do believe and I don't think I'm alone in believing that Israel's force was more indiscriminate than it should have been.

Daily News: Okay. We will check the facts. I don't want to venture a number that I'm not sure on, but we will check those facts. Now, talk about Hamas. What is it? Is it a terrorist organization?

Sanders: Yes.

Daily News: Okay. Hezbollah too?

Sanders: Yes.
Click to expand...

He criticieze the settlements and gaza war but then says "israel will do what it wants"
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Sanders: Actually we rode the subway, Mike, when we were here? About a year ago? But I know how to ride the subways. I’ve been on them once or twice.

Daily News: Do you really? Do you really? How do you ride the subway today?

Sanders: What do you mean, "How do you ride the subway?"

Daily News: How do you get on the subway today?

Sanders: You get a token and you get in.
Click to expand...


lolololol
 
H

hawk2025

Member
!!!

The whole interview is terrible. I'm somewhat surprised it took this long to get some push on his position on Wall Street, though.

As expected, his approach only works when dealing with Wall Street as a monolithic badman with vagueries. When pressed, there's little to no substance to it.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
pigeon said:
The thing I'm really bummed about is that it's pretty clear, reading that interview, that he doesn't seem to know what Dodd-Frank does or how it works.

Dodd-Frank is the biggest financial regulation bill in the last like twenty years! Dodd-Frank is the bill he keeps complaining isn't effective enough! How can he not understand how it works? THIS IS LITERALLY HIS ONE ISSUE

Like, I've seen better commentary on Dodd-Frank from random Bernie supporters in this thread than Bernie provides in that interview.

I'm honestly surprised by that transcript. I assumed that, of all things, Bernie would at least be able to coherently explain how he plans to deal with Wall Street.
Click to expand...

the rest of the interview makes me legit worried about bernie. He seems out of his depth in most of the questions. Compare these kind of answers to hillary

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
CfPw_cFUYAAbusT.jpg:large


As Jamelle Boule Points out this litterall makes it sound like bernie doesn't understand people disagree with him on the merits not just because they're corporate stooges.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
That whole interview is a disaster.

My Berniebro read it with a low level "fuckkkk" going through the whole thing. Bernie is in way, way over his head here.
 
S

shem935

Banned
How is just now in the primary process that these questions are being asked of him? Or maybe I missed him answering them in this level of specificity earlier?
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
This is a non-answer on drones as well

CfPtkrxW4AA6Xam.jpg:large


This whole interview should really show bernie isn't ready to be president.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders, making a stand on the issues!

"Bombing weddings is not productive"

Bernie Sanders, the voice of knowledge

"I don't know, I have to study my main talking point"
 
U

User 463088

Banned
shem935 said:
How is just now in the primary process that these questions are being asked of him? Or maybe I missed him answering them in this level of specificity earlier?
Click to expand...

Because he's running against Hillary Clinton and specificity isn't required for the narrative. Some of his answers at other editorial interviews were just as bad, though.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
John Oliver's bit on congressional fundraising was great.

No one seems to be talking about it but I think he did a great job showing the difficulty trying to make good in Washington. I really enjoyed Chris Murphy's honesty on the matter.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
StopMakingSense said:
I've been of the opinion for a while that Bernie would legitimately be a bad president. He just has no interest in about 80 percent of the job.
Click to expand...

Same here. In terms of the big picture he raises important issues, and I'm glad he's talking about these things. But he can't talk about policy in detail and he has no workable plan to actually accomplish anything. People often talk of Clinton supporters settling for electability reasons but, as much as I am concerned about his electability, there's no doubt in my mind she'd make a better president than Sanders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom