Support NeoGAF

[Thequietone]

The answer to that question is yes.

It's yaaaaaaaas

 

[brainchild]

Is this true?

I mean the same editorial board that interviewed him wrote a pretty savage assessment of his interview with them when they endorsed HRC.

Really?

The NYDN editoral board thought he did well?



This was in their article when they endorsed Hillary. Its just a fraction of their criticism on Bernie's performance in their interview.

Yeah, what I said is true.

https://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

I should note that I did not say that the Editorial Board spoke favorably of Sanders. Just that people who were there had a different interpretation of the interview.

Also, there have been many articles since then that have debunked the notion that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that it was actually the INTERVIEWER who didn't know what he was talking about, like this one:

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.

This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.

Much has been made about Sanders answering questions by saying that he didn’t know or hadn’t thought about a particular issue, such as where to interrogate captured terrorists. Sanders said we could imprison them in the U.S. safely, and could question them immediately near where they were captured, but said he hadn’t given a lot of thought to precisely where.

On drones, the Daily News asked: “President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he’s got the right policy there?”

“I don’t know the answer to that,” Sanders said.

A nice gotcha, except that while Obama did announce publicly that at some point in the future authority would move from the CIA to the U.S. military, that decision was quietly reversed — so quietly that the news apparently didn’t make it to New York (though HuffPost did report on it).

Candidates the media deem to be serious do not get these policy pop quizzes, because it is believed (accurately) that they can hire experienced advisers who can work out the details. But if they were pressed, there’s no doubt a studied reporter could make them look silly.

Or even unstudied ones. Sanders mostly let the Daily News editors’ own errors go uncorrected, but at least once, he jumped in.

Daily News: But when you were mayor of Vermont ...

Sanders: Burlington.

Daily News: Mayor of Burlington, I’m sorry.


Gotcha.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bern...55_-1177820531085504892&kvcommref=mostpopular

Lots to unpack there, but the general gist is that the interviewer made a lot of errors which resulted in a framing of questions that ultimately made Bernie look like he didn't know what he was talking about.

If there should be any critique, it should be that Bernie didn't call the interviewer out on all of those errors.

Not really, the problem is that past the shiny wrapped surface surrounding his ideas, he can't clearly communicate methods through which he would pass legislation, or even what the content of said legislation would be. It isn't surprising how frequently he pivots to his stump speech.

As unlikely as a political revolution is, mobilizing the electorate to ensure that the Democratic party takes over the congress and retain it in the mid-terms is an answer, and would allow him to enact his policies. Just because it's an answer that seems to be based on naivete doesn't mean that it's not answer or that it's not specific.

 

[Paskil]

I mean, we've come incredibly far, incredibly fast on a dozen different issues. A $15/hr minimum wage 8 years ago would have been madness. It was, for lack of a better term, a political revolution.

I miss the domino period that started in December 2013 with Utah. New Jersey and New Mexico were big deals, but Kitchen was the big one. I read every single opinion following that. I particularly enjoyed the 4th Circuit opinion in Bostic and Posner during oral arguments and the opinion he wrote for 7th Circuit in Baskin.

So good.

 

[Paskil]

As unlikely as a political revolution is, mobilizing the electorate to ensure that the Democratic party takes over the congress and retain it in the mid-terms is an answer, and would allow him enact his policies. Just because it's an answer that seems to be based on naivete doesn't mean that it's not answer or that it's not specific.

But he has given that answer, both in his campaigning and in his actions. Hundreds of thousands of people are not going to show up outside the Capitol and frighten Ryan and McConnell into suddenly passing all the legislation (which is all pretty fucking radical, by the way, much of it even by Democratic standards) he has proposed. He has shown an unwillingness to support any down ballot candidates, except those that swear fealty or pass his purity test.

The revolution also doesn't exist. There is a very loud echo chamber on the internet of millennials that post a lot of shit on social networks about feeling the Bern. Great, he can turn out 15,000 people to a rally. How are those primary turnouts looking state by state, compared to historical figures?

Clinton is essentially doing his work for him by trying to get the people he needs elected, and what does Sanders do? Turns around and attacks George Clooney and her fundraising AND USES IT TO RAISE MONEY FOR HIMSELF.

Seriously, I went from liking Bernie to disliking him a great deal.

Edit: Blah double post. I posted and started a new response thinking someone would post before I finished.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I can draft legislation too if it's 4 pages long and double spaced.

 

[johnsmith]

The best part about the Cruz ad is that they not only cast a pretty good lookalike for hillary, but for Huma too.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Is there one major politician on the left who hasn't changed their mind of marriage equality? That includes Bernie Sanders.

There is exactly one. Nancy Pelosi, my soon to be representative. God bless that Catholic.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think people have some really rose tinted glasses on the gay right movement through the 90s, 2000s, and now (like any top 40 radio station intro).

One of the most salient points Hillary made was when Bernie was attacking Hillary's progressive credentials and she said that even Wellstone voted for DOMA. Gay rights were far out of the main stream even in the 90s. Even Bill Clinton died on the sword of trying to repeal the gay soldier ban in the 90s. DADT was, and I can't believe I'm saying this, a compromise. It was either that or the official, full ban on gay soldiers would've continued into Obama's first term.

DADT was a last step, and a pretty bad one, to try to save ANYTHING from a campaign of homophobia and fear mongering from Clinton's own caucus. But it was an extremely radical idea for Clinton to be proposing, even then.

Marriage is between a man and a woman until it wasn't. The whole damn country changed its mine in the span of 8 years. It was the most successfully progressive movement in our lifetimes.

There is exactly one. Nancy Pelosi, my soon to be representative. God bless that Catholic.

Bless that heathen.

 

[Paskil]

The best part about the Cruz ad is that they not only cast a pretty good lookalike for hillary, but for Huma too.

I want to start a Huma fan club.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Bless that heathen.

Did I ever tell you guys that I'm related to Nancy Pelosi? I think my great great grandfather is her grandfather's half brother. I heard from some relatives there was a bit of a schism in the family and her side of the D'Alesandro's added an s to the last name, presumably because he was running for mayor of Baltimore and wanted to distance himself from the poor working class side of the family.

 

[User1608]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

Well done. But lol Cruz will be buried in a GE.

 

[ivysaur12]

Well done. But lol Cruz will be buried in a GE.

Also Trump and Cruz both have worse favorables than Hillary

 

[Emarv]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

I can't tell if this is an attack ad or the start of a porn parody.

 

[Trancos]

Yeah, what I said is true.

Not sure what you are arguing here. The board destroyed Bernie in their endorsement of Hillary calling him out in that he couldn't give details on policy.
You are trying to argue that they didn't meant what they say ? You know better what they were trying to say?

Also all articles defending Bernie awful interview are also full of: when he said 'I haven't thought about that' he was really trying to say ' looooong explanation'. Is always full of people putting words in Bernie's mouth that he never said.

That's a lot of bernsplaining. 'I know better what they were trying to say, and also what he was trying to say, just let me explain...'

Finally he was asked the same question at the debate, and they specifically mentioned the interview, and gave him the opportunity to explain his policy.
He answered: break them up. Too big to exist!

He was asked again to give details. He again answered ' break them up' 'too hig to exist'

That's 3 times in one week that he get asked the same question and can't answer it. Common man. 3 times.

 

[Paskil]

There is exactly one. Nancy Pelosi, my soon to be representative. God bless that Catholic.

Russ Feingold voted against DOMA. Kerry, Boxer, Wyden, and Feinstein did, as well. That's just in the Senate. I didn't look up their earliest statements, but Russ was on the record at least in 2004 in favor.

 

[Trouble]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

Fake Huma's a cutie.

 

[danm999]

I should note that I did not say that the Editorial Board spoke favourably of Sanders. Just that people who were there had a different interpretation of the interview.

I dunno based on what they wrote in their endorsement they seemed to have a similar one to a lot of other people. I actually think theirs was harsher than many in here.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Writing symbolic legislation that will never go anywhere is easy; the Republicans having been doing that just fine too but we don't exactly see that as a selling point. What's much harder to do is to actually build consensus, compromise, and reliably pass bills, that is, to actually govern and not just talk about how you wish we could govern and what your dream legislation is.

Bernie's "solution" to the problem of governance is wishing for a system where he doesn't actually have to do any work. Of course you can pass anything if you have super-majorities everywhere. The question is, how does Bernie approach the actual reality of politics, how does he handle the messy details of building coalitions, not just being a messenger of ideals? I think even Bernie would admit he's been more of a grand-stander than a do-er. Obama had to compromise on Obamacare despite majorities, and he certainly couldn't rely on wishing for a counter-revolution after 2010 to magically make things better. Hell, even the Republicans can't get their act together to actually do anything despite having Ryan at the helm. When circumstances necessitate a plan in order to accomplish something, it is not a plan to wish those circumstances didn't exist.

It's like the old joke about the desert island, "Let's assume we have a can opener"...

 

[User1608]

Also Trump and Cruz both have worse favorables than Hillary

The man is certainly delusional. Nothing will bring me greater joy (outside of Trump losing) than to see this toad utterly flop, especially after all the bs he's pulled over the years.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Russ Feingold voted against DOMA. Kerry, Boxer, Wyden, and Feinstein did, as well. That's just in the Senate. I didn't look up their earliest statements, but Russ was on the record at least in 2004 in favor.

! But those are establishment politicians!

 

[Irnbru]

I can draft legislation too if it's 4 pages long and double spaced.

I still can't believe that was an actual piece of legislation, flabbergasted.

 

[brainchild]

Can you link some some examples of substantial legislation? The only legislation that I have read that he drafted was that 4 page break up the banks thing. I definitely would not call that substantive or serious legislation. The purpose was political

The rest of the legislation he drafted and actually passed certainly was not substantial, so I would be interested in seeing if his failed legislation is actually serious or if it is just a few pages of political protest.

I argued that his legislation was substantive, not substantial, there is a difference, though the latter could definitely be up for debate, depending on the legislation.

Here's an excerpt of one of his most recent bills

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—

(1) greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere at a rate that may cause average temperatures to rise 8 degrees Fahrenheit or more;

(2) the expected rise in average temperatures poses a risk of—

(A) increasing global average air and ocean temperatures;

(B) widespread melting of snow and ice; and

(C) rising global average sea level;

(3) the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is clear that climate change is—

(A) real;

(B) caused by human activity; and

(C) already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world; and

(4) mandatory steps will be required to move aggressively to transform the energy system of the United States away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

(b) Purposes.—The purposes of this Act are—

(1) to reduce, in conjunction with other laws, emissions of carbon pollution to ensure that the contribution of the United States to global climate change is lower than the level required to keep global average temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius;

(2) to implement solutions that acknowledge the intersections of environmental degradation that perpetuate racial, social, and economic inequities;

(3) to protect the lives of low-income, minority, and tribal communities and reinvest in those communities;

(4) to empower communities to prepare for, and react to, the impacts of climate change that are already being experienced by communities; and

(5) to demonstrate to the international community a commitment by the Government of the United States to aggressively reduce carbon pollution emissions.


SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States that—

(1) the Government of the United States should lead the international community in an aggressive transition away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy;

(2) the Government of the United States should tax carbon pollution to capture the price on the atmosphere and motivate significant reductions in emissions; and

(3) the transition away from fossil fuels shall focus on climate justice, which requires solutions that consider—

(A) the needs of workers; and

(B) the manners in which the causes and effects of climate change disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities.


SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that Congress agrees with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that—

(1) climate change is real;

(2) climate change is caused by human activities;

(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world;

(4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and

(5) it is imperative that the United States transform the energy system of the United States away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

TITLE I—ACHIEVING EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

SEC. 101. CARBON POLLUTION FEE.
(a) In General.—Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


“PART E—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
“SEC. 194. DEFINITIONS.

“In this part:

“(1) CARBON POLLUTING SUBSTANCE.—The term ‘carbon polluting substance’ means coal (including lignite and peat), petroleum and any petroleum product, or natural gas that—

“(A) when combusted or otherwise used, will release greenhouse gas emissions; and

“(B) is—

“(i) extracted, manufactured, or produced in the United States; or

“(ii) imported into the United States for consumption, use, or warehousing.

“(2) CARBON POLLUTION-INTENSIVE GOOD.—The term ‘carbon pollution-intensive good’ means a good that is (as identified by the Administrator, by rule) iron, steel, a steel mill product (including pipe and tube), aluminum, cement, glass (including flat, container, and specialty glass and fiberglass), pulp, paper, a chemical, or an industrial ceramic.

“(3) RATE OF INFLATION.—The term ‘rate of inflation’ means the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2017’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) of that section.

“(4) SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT MEASURE.—The term ‘substantially equivalent measure’ means a fee or other regulatory requirement that imposes a cost on manufacturers of carbon pollution-intensive goods located outside the United States approximately equal to the cost imposed by the fee under this part on manufacturers of comparable carbon pollution-intensive goods located in the United States.

“SEC. 195. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS TARGETS.

“It is the policy of the United States that greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the United States economy should not exceed—

“(1) 5,800,000,000 tons in 2020;

“(2) 3,700,000,000 tons in 2030;

“(3) 2,500,000,000 tons in 2040; and

“(4) 1,260,000,000 tons in 2050.

“SEC. 196. CARBON POLLUTION FEE.

“(a) In General.—The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator, shall impose on any manufacturer, producer, or importer of a carbon polluting substance a fee in accordance with this section.

“(b) Amount.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the carbon pollution fee imposed under subsection (a) on any carbon polluting substance shall be assessed per ton of carbon dioxide content (including carbon dioxide equivalent content of methane) of the carbon polluting substance, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator and the Secretary of Energy.

“(2) FRACTIONAL PART OF TON.—In the case of a fraction of a ton of a carbon polluting substance, the fee imposed under subsection (a) shall be the same fraction of the amount of the fee imposed on a whole ton of the carbon polluting substance.

“(3) APPLICABLE AMOUNT FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2035.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the amount of the fee for the following calendar years shall be—

“(4) APPLICABLE AMOUNT AFTER CALENDAR YEAR 2035.—For purposes of paragraph (1), for each calendar year occurring after calendar year 2035, the amount of the fee shall be an amount equal to the sum of—

“(A) the amount in effect for the preceding calendar year; and

“(B) the product (rounded to the nearest dollar) obtained by multiplying—

“(i) the amount described in subparagraph (A); and

“(ii) 5 percent, plus the rate of inflation.

“(c) Single Imposition Of Fee.—No fee shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to a carbon polluting substance if the person that would be liable for the fee establishes that a prior fee imposed under that subsection has been imposed with respect to that carbon polluting substance.

“(d) Limitations.—No fee shall be imposed against a person under subsection (a) if during the calendar year, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator, may prescribe—

“(1) for a calendar year before calendar year 2036, the person uses a carbon polluting substance as a feedstock so that the carbon associated with that carbon polluting substance will not be emitted; or

“(2) a fee under subsection (a) was paid with respect to another carbon polluting substance that is used by the person in the manufacture or production of the applicable carbon polluting substance.

“SEC. 197. INTERAGENCY CLIMATE COUNCIL.

“(a) Establishment.—There is established a council, to be known as the ‘Interagency Climate Council’ (referred to in this section as the ‘Council’).

“(b) Membership.—The Council shall be composed of—

“(1) the Administrator, who shall be the Chairperson;

“(2) the Secretary of the Treasury;

“(3) the Secretary of Energy;

“(4) the Secretary of Transportation;

“(5) the Secretary of Commerce;

“(6) the Secretary of the Interior;

“(7) the Secretary of Agriculture;

“(8) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

“(9) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and

“(10) the Chairperson of the Council of Environmental Quality.

“(c) Activities.—

“(1) EFFICACY ASSESSMENT.—Beginning in 2020 and every 3 years thereafter, the Council shall assess the efficacy of Federal, State, and local actions in effect as of the date of the assessment, including Federal statutory or regulatory policies and policies established by the Climate Protection and Justice Act of 2015, in achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets described in section 195.

“(2) REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES.—The Council shall identify and evaluate potential greenhouse gas emissions reductions opportunities in all sectors of the economy, including opportunities for the promulgation under this Act of new or updated regulations for stationary and mobile sources.

“(d) Regulations.—If the Council finds, in carrying out an assessment under subsection (c)(1), that the United States has not met any emissions reductions target described in section 195, or if there is substantial risk that the United States may not meet an emissions reduction target described in that section, the Administrator shall, not later than 2 years after the date of the assessment by the Council, promulgate final regulations under this Act to update existing regulations or establish new regulations relating to a sector of the economy identified by the Council, with sufficient stringency and coverage to ensure that the United States meets the emissions reductions target.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2399/text

The bill goes on and on, and is quite substantive. To argue that it isn't specific or lacks substance is not only preposterous, it's patently false.

Here are his other substantive pieces of legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q={"sponsorship":"sponsored"}

But he has given that answer, both in his campaigning and in his actions. Hundreds of thousands of people are not going to show up outside the Capitol and frighten Ryan and McConnell into suddenly passing all the legislation (which is all pretty fucking radical, by the way, much of it even by Democratic standards) he has proposed. He has shown an unwillingness to support any down ballot candidates, except those that swear fealty or pass his purity test.

The revolution also doesn't exist. There is a very loud echo chamber on the internet of millennials that post a lot of shit on social networks about feeling the Bern. Great, he can turn out 15,000 people to a rally. How are those primary turnouts looking state by state, compared to historical figures?

Clinton is essentially doing his work for him by trying to get the people he needs elected, and what does Sanders do? Turns around and attacks George Clooney and her fundraising AND USES IT TO RAISE MONEY FOR HIMSELF.

Seriously, I went from liking Bernie to disliking him a great deal.

Edit: Blah double post. I posted and started a new response thinking someone would post before I finished.

That's all well and good but it doesn't change my point; he DOES give an answer, and it's specific, so it's false to say that he doesn't.

I can draft legislation too if it's 4 pages long and double spaced.

I'm pretty sure this one (a bill he introduced last year to address the intersectionality of climate change neglect and social injustice) is longer than 4 pages

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2399/text

 

[Trancos]

I can draft legislation too if it's 4 pages long and double spaced.

Just as a reference the infamous Dodd-Frank reform act is 849 pages long (not double spaced).

 

[brainchild]

Not sure what you are arguing here. The board destroyed Bernie in their endorsement of Hillary calling him out in that he couldn't give details on policy.
You are trying to argue that they didn't meant what they say ? You know better what they were trying to say?

Also all articles defending Bernie awful interview are also full of: when he said 'I haven't thought about that' he was really trying to say ' looooong explanation'. Is always full of people putting words in Bernie's mouth that he never said.

That's a lot of bernsplaining. 'I know better what they were trying to say, and also what he was trying to say, just let me explain...'

Finally he was asked the same question at the debate, and they specifically mentioned the interview, and gave him the opportunity to explain his policy.
He answered: break them up. Too big to exist!

He was asked again to give details. He again answered ' break them up' 'too hig to exist'

That's 3 times in one week that he get asked the same question and can't answer it. Common man. 3 times.

No, I'm saying that the interviewer was FACTUALLY wrong, and Bernie responded to many of the interviewer's factually wrong premises in a confused way, and that eventually was spun into Bernie not knowing what he was talking about.

As for the debate, Bernie specifically mentioned his legislation as a way to break up the banks (which is sufficient).

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug, especially if it causes selective memory.

 

[hawk2025]

It most certainly is

 

[Suikoguy]

That Android thread made me consider a question to discuss here, I hessitate to post it this late as the forum goes to sleep around this time until like 6 AM EST, but here goes:

What should the role of the government and courts be when it comes to companies with substantial marketshare or monopolies?

My litmus test has been harm to consumer via pricing, lack of options and by extension quality and the tenuous reduction or innovation.

Should it be the role of government to protect corporations from other corporations, or just the consumer (and by extension, negative externalities like tragedy of the commons and the environment)?

 

[brainchild]

Just as a reference the infamous Dodd-Frank reform act is 849 pages long (not double spaced).

An act that was also referenced in Sanders' bill as part of the framework for breaking up the big banks.

It most certainly is

Touché

 

[danm999]

No, I'm saying that the interviewer was FACTUALLY wrong, and Bernie responded to many of the interviewer's factually wrong premises in a confused way, and that eventually was spun into Bernie not knowing what he was talking about.

I actually listened to the audio of the entire interview. Not only did he do fine, but people who were actually present with the editorial board thought he did fine as well, and was surprised by the negative reactions (thanks in part to the Clinton campaign).

I find these two a tad contradictory sorry.

 

[brainchild]

I find these two a tad contradictory sorry.

A lot has changed in the conversation since that original post. Other points were made, and I reiterated them.

 

[brainchild]

Writing symbolic legislation that will never go anywhere is easy; the Republicans having been doing that just fine too but we don't exactly see that as a selling point. What's much harder to do is to actually build consensus, compromise, and reliably pass bills, that is, to actually govern and not just talk about how you wish we could govern and what your dream legislation is.

Bernie's "solution" to the problem of governance is wishing for a system where he doesn't actually have to do any work. Of course you can pass anything if you have super-majorities everywhere. The question is, how does Bernie approach the actual reality of politics, how does he handle the messy details of building coalitions, not just being a messenger of ideals? I think even Bernie would admit he's been more of a grand-stander than a do-er. Obama had to compromise on Obamacare despite majorities, and he certainly couldn't rely on wishing for a counter-revolution after 2010 to magically make things better. Hell, even the Republicans can't get their act together to actually do anything despite having Ryan at the helm. When circumstances necessitate a plan in order to accomplish something, it is not a plan to wish those circumstances didn't exist.

It's like the old joke about the desert island, "Let's assume we have a can opener"...

Here are his actual (not symbolic) bills and amendments if you're actually interested in learning about them.

EDIT:

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Holmes]

Here's a sample of what the ballot Puerto Rico will look like. Clinton first, Sanders third, and there are pictures. And it does say "presidential primary" despite some sources saying it'll be a caucus.

 

[3phemeral]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

I love it.

 

[Trancos]

I thought it was an open primary.

 

[Hexa]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

Am I the only one that thinks that made Hillary look totally badass?

 

[brainchild]

Am I the only one that thinks that made Hillary look totally badass?

I agree, lol

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Here are his actual (not symbolic) bills and amendments if you're actually interested in learning about them.

EDIT:

Sorry for the double post.

SORT RESULTS *Click* BY ASCENDING LAW NUMBER *Sorting* 3 "Law" Results out of 781.

Two to rename post offices in Vermont and a cost of living adjustment for Veterans.

Cool cool. Symbolic legislation that will never go beyond being introduced or proposed is not synonymous with the legislation being non-substantive. The Republicans bills to repeal Obamacare are substantive but symbolic.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Spoilers: Expanding Medicaid allowed poor people to be able to pay their bills if they got sick.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22170

Dumbass George Mason economists said that "hey, look, eventually these poor people have their bills just ignored by the hospital so Obamacare wasn't needed!" Yeah, and until the hospital writes them off as a lost cause, their whole life is fucked up and they're ready of die of stress and anxiety.

 

[brainchild]

SORT RESULTS *Click* BY ASCENDING LAW NUMBER *Sorting*y 3 "Law" Results out of 781.

Two to rename post offices in Vermont and a cost of living adjustment for Veterans.

Cool cool.

Since when did this become about how many bills were signed into law?

I was simply refuting the notion that his legislation was largely vague, unsubstantial, and/or symbolic.

 

[Trancos]

A lot has changed in the conversation since that original post. Other points were made, and I reiterated them.

But your first argument was that the board thought that it was a good interview.....aaaah forget it. Your arguments have more evolutions than Pokemon.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Since when did this become about how many bills were signed into law?

I was simply refuting the notion that his legislation was largely vague, unsubstantial, and/or symbolic.

One of those words is not like the others.

I think you're probably just conflating my stuff with the other peoples though, which makes sense but in my original post I explicitly talk about reliably passing bills versus symbolic legislation, not about whether the bills are 'substantive'.

As I said in the edit above, repealing obamacare is arguably substantive but it's still symbolic.

 

[3phemeral]

Am I the only one that thinks that made Hillary look totally badass?

Nope. #EvilHillary4eveh

 

[brainchild]

But your first argument was that the board thought that it was a good interview.....aaaah forget it. Your arguments have more evolutions than Pokemon.

I never said that. There were people that were present with the the board (meaning they were in the same room with the board as the interview was being conducted) that disagreed with the board's interpretation of the interview.

Symbolic legislation that will never go beyond being introduced or proposed is no synonymous with non-substantive legislation.

I'd imagine that all of those bills from last year were not just drafted with only the current Republican congress in mind

One of those words is not like the others.

You're right, but I disagree with this assumption that the bills were written to simply give a message and weren't intended to go anywhere.

Also, Bernie didn't write that many bills in the first place. Most of his legislation exists in the form of amendments, and many of those were able to get through Congress.

EDIT: Actually, let me rephrase that. I shouldn't say that he didn't write a lot of bills (he did), rather, proportionally speaking, he has written more amendments.

But I don't think that we should be calling every bill that doesn't get signed into law as 'symbolic'. It's an unfair generalisation that lacks nuance and context. If you're going to determine that a bill is symbolic, you really need to consider the full content of each individual bill.

EDIT 2:

Looking at Hillary's legislation, going by your logic, she's just as symbolic of a legislator. Of course, I'd disagree with that assertion as well.

Determining the level of symbolism in pieces of legislation by how many of them were signed into law is a terrible metric to use, as it completely ignores any kind of bipartisan effort that might also not get signed into law, for whatever reason.

 

[blackaroni]

Here's a sample of what the ballot Puerto Rico will look like. Clinton first, Sanders third, and there are pictures. And it does say "presidential primary" despite some sources saying it'll be a caucus.

Who in the hell is Rocky?

I love it.

Excellent.

Am I the only one that thinks that made Hillary look totally badass?

Nah, I thought so too. Ad was perfect until they showed that picture of Ted. Huma tho...

 

[Kangi]

Here's a sample of what the ballot Puerto Rico will look like. Clinton first, Sanders third, and there are pictures. And it does say "presidential primary" despite some sources saying it'll be a caucus.

...Where's Willie?

Dr. Willie Wilson shall not be denied in such a way.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Man, is Ted Cruz one frightening person:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/ted-cruz-confused-about-cicero/383066/

 

[IrishNinja]

Of course you do Huelen.

The argument for cruz being eligible to run for potus is better than the argument for his tax plan though.

I refuse to believe you're a real person

i feel like i'm witnessing some kinda post-modern art with that performance

I can't tell if this is an attack ad or the start of a porn parody.

after that huma, i was legit bummed it wasn't

 

[cartoon_soldier]

That Android thread made me consider a question to discuss here, I hessitate to post it this late as the forum goes to sleep around this time until like 6 AM EST, but here goes:

What should the role of the government and courts be when it comes to companies with substantial marketshare or monopolies?

My litmus test has been harm to consumer via pricing, lack of options and by extension quality and the tenuous reduction or innovation.

Should it be the role of government to protect corporations from other corporations, or just the consumer (and by extension, negative externalities like tragedy of the commons and the environment)?

I don't understand how Android is a monopoly. Every manufacturer has their own version of Android with different apps, features and what not. Hell even the browser is not always chrome.

If anything iOS is a budget hindrance to companies trying to get into Apple ecosystem than Android is. See them removing flux from app store them releasing their own functionality that does the same.

 

[Wilsongt]

Is there one major politician on the left who hasn't changed their mind of marriage equality? That includes Bernie Sanders.

Barnie Frank?

 

[shinra-bansho]

I could draft longer bills too that build on past failed bills if I had a bunch of aides and interns to do grunt work.

What can't really be easily replicated is more innate intellectual curiosity, interest in policy and details and actual governance.

 

[Maledict]

Barnie Frank?

Possibly, but maybe not. A lot of the gay community wasn't behind marriage equality back in the 90s for a whole host of reasons.