Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

No. The presidency is far more powerful than a prime minister would be.

The main problem here is that Bernie has done nothing for down ticket Democrats. Nor, to my knowledge, even down ticket leftist independents. Your cabinet is an advisory board with autonomy to lead their department, if you want to get anything done in any lasting manner, you need to have a congress that will work with you. Bernie has done nothing to make that happen.

Also, the above.

both of these, and unlike us, Canadian parties have their leadership "primaries" well in advance of the actual elections - Trudeau has been the Liberal leader for 3 years now, he's had plenty of time to get the Liberals' shit together and had an especially long time to get a coherent leadership team nominated in ridings

(e: crypto i'm aware you're gonna know this, this is mostly an explanation for anyone else)

 

[NimbusD]

Thought this was interesting:
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/


Also, the article title owns

Pretty great article. People seem to be reading a lot into what isnt there in Sanders answers.

 

[Piecake]

Well the proof is different outlets I've read detailing that and Sanders himself testifying about it.

A few instances were he got negative press and a candidate talking about media bias, where every conservative and his mother is decrying the evil liberal media is hardly proof of anything though.

And as for the corporate media thing well, I guess you could say one of the oldest contemporary sociological schools of thought about the culture industry and is still extremely relevant today childish I guess you can but you're gonna get laughed by a lot of people. And while other schools of thoughts are less pessimist about the media's motives, most agree on the transformative powers it has and how editorial line is factors in it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry

I never denied that media lacked the power to shape opinions. I simply find it absurd when people use it as a conspiracy theory to explain why their candidate is doing poorly. Using complex academic terms in this manner is simple, stupid and juvenile. And I have noticed several Bernie supporters delve into those conspiratorial waters in various threads.

The most important factor when you think of media is that its purpose is to sell itself. If the media thought Bernie had a legitimate shot then they would prop him up more, not less, because competition creates drama, and drama sells more papers and gets more eyeballs on screens.

The media would LOVE it if Bernie did better because it would make this race more interesting.

Second, a news organization generally has a pretty consistent political tone and view, but there are a lot of news organizations. These tones and views are usually in line with a good amount of people because that is where most people are in the political spectrum.
The Vast majority of people read for Confirmation Bias. They already have beliefs and gravitate towards news sources that reinforce those beliefs. They aren't being brainwashed or their views changed because they already hold those views.

Even within that spectrum, there are a wide variety of views and tones that news organizations can take. the NYT, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, The Atlantic, The Economist, PBS, etc., all would fall under the label of corporate media, but they don't share the same views and not all the people working for those news organizations share the same views either.

You don't like 'corporate media' because it disagrees with your political views, and you find other sources that do because you want to have your views confirmed like everyone else. This isn't the fault of 'corporate media' for not having a diverse set of views. Media is there to sell itself. Your views simply just arent popular and if you want to read news from your perspective then you are going to need to find it from a different source. Though personally, NPR, The Atlantic, and to an extent the NYT seem pretty liberal and progressive to me.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It is actually my first primary I'm not American. And while obviously the odds are stacked against him, Bernie has got both momentum and is carrying a particularly different campaign historically speaking in terms of the populist agenda. And of course one could argue that the southern states Hillary had a bigger advantage, but I'm not gonna get upset if you don't share that thought. If I were to throw a random number based on my hopes/chances of Bernie overcoming the delegate lead? 20%
Getting the super delegates and being the nominee? Lol 0%

Momentum is a myth. It's just a matter of timing in the same way that Clinton had good states at the end in 2008 and a good run of states in 2016 when the South voted. Sanders happens to have just passed that period where he had favorable calendar states for a while. Now it swings back a bit to a more balanced list of states coming up.

If he could line up all the states he's won to vote consecutively in the calendar, he would have momentum and the same applies to Clinton. All that really exists are favorable states and unfavorable states and he's running out of favorable states and time.

 

[eBay Huckster]

regarding bias, hawk2025 has linked to this 2006 study conducted by a couple researchers from UChicago quite a few times in the past few days and its conclusions are basically what Piecake just said:

media firms will tend to cater their information to their existing viewer/reader base's pre-existing biases

or in other words, bias is demand-side, not supply-side

 

[JP_]

Thought this was interesting:
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

People don't seem to be reading this.

I already pointed out the MetLife ruling (what the misleading quote in the thread title is referring to, how has the thread title not been corrected?) wasn't even a week ago and I had responses saying he should be studying it nonstop even though he's in the middle of his campaign.

We don’t know what Metlife means yet
Sanders says the recent Metlife court decision from last week is “something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.” The ruling, as I type this, is sealed and has still not been released, so we have no clue what the opinion even is yet. It will likely have serious, negative, consequences, but it’s too early to understand what it means for all of financial reform going forward.

I guess you guys think he should break in and steal it, huh? Another tidbit:

There are three ways we can break up the banks.

1. Pass a law putting some sort of cap on the size of the balance sheet of financial companies, usually non-deposit liabilities. Caps, such as Senator Brown’s SAFE Banking Act, are generally proposed around 2 or 3 percent of GDP.
2. Have the council of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), on which the Treasury Secretary serves as chair, declare the largest firms to be too risky and must be broken up (Section 121).
3. Have the Federal Reserve, along with the FDIC, determine that the “living wills” of the biggest banks, which are plans on how they can fail without bringing down the economy, are not credible, and thus must be broken up (Section 165d).

The second two work through Dodd-Frank, the first would work through Congress.

Here’s the first exchange that people are citing:

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.

Sanders is clearly saying that he wants to push on the first (“legislation passed&#8221 and second (“secretary of treasury to determine&#8221, two projects you can do at the same time. He’s emphasized Section 121 in the past. I wish he’d emphasize the third approach more, as that’s where the fight currently is, but his answer is fine.

If anything, Sanders is too wonky. The Daily News and commentators on this, I think, mean regulators as a whole, instead of the specific powers of the Federal Reserve itself, when they ask if the Fed has that authority already. Does the Fed have that authority? The Federal Reserve does have an extensive set of powers under the second and third approach, but it isn’t unilateral, but it also isn’t clear how much they could push if they truly wanted it. Sanders is correct to say it’s unclear how far the Federal Reserve can go but it is clear, however, that the Treasury secretary can lead FSOC to it.

More in the link, but I wouldn't want to be too much of a party pooper.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It is actually my first primary I'm not American. And while obviously the odds are stacked against him, Bernie has got both momentum and is carrying a particularly different campaign historically speaking in terms of the populist agenda. And of course one could argue that the southern states Hillary had a bigger advantage, but I'm not gonna get upset if you don't share that thought. If I were to throw a random number based on my hopes/chances of Bernie overcoming the delegate lead? 20%
Getting the super delegates and being the nominee? Lol 0%

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh. I've explained that to so many lifelong Americans that I got frustrated.

Someone mentioned it, but I think one of the more interesting things that people will study about this primary is how momentum just doesn't matter. Hillary won massive sweeps across the country, but she lost Michigan. Bernie swiped Michigan, but he got swept in 5 states. Hillary swept 5 states in one day, and she got beaten badly in 3 more. Bernie's going through his high now, but we've got pretty strong polling that shows he'll continue to win until NY, where he'll be lucky to lose by 15. Momentum has always been some nebulous, shifting concept, but it's really been put through the ringer this election.

And the problem with the Southern states thing is that it's not super accurate. Hillary had those commanding leads because of African American voters. She's dominating that particular demographic, and has in every state so far. She loses states where black people don't make up much of the voting bloc (I think Wisconsin clocked in 84% white). Black people live in the South by wide margins, but they also make up large chunks of states like NY and CA. Minority voters are the real Clinton firewall.

And true, there's no chance of supers flipping unless he overtakes her in the pledged delegates. But he's got to win every contest from here on out by 15 points to do that. A single miss (and even Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine will tell you that he won't even win MD, DC, or Puerto Rico), and his targets get a whole lot worse. Reference 538's recent article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

Totat counts aren't final yet, but he likely missed his Wisconsin target. So that was actually a loss for him. It's going one for one in basketball on free throws; better than missing both, but not what you needed when you're down by as much as he is.

Again, super sorry if I was too hostile.

 

[Walpurgis]

No. The presidency is far more powerful than a prime minister would be.

Really? I thought it was the other way around. Why does the president have so many problems getting stuff done? 🤔

 

[B-Dubs]

Really? I thought it was the other way around. Why does the president have so many problems getting stuff done? ��

Imagine you're dealing with a 5-year-old who wants ice cream for dinner and is throwing a tantrum unless they get their way. That's the republicans in congress right now. The president has a lot of power, but when an entire political party decides not to play at all there's only so much that could get done. It's a very unusual time in American politics to say the least.

 

[Walpurgis]

Imagine you're dealing with a 5-year-old who wants ice cream for dinner and is throwing a tantrum unless they get their way. That's the republicans in congress right now. The president has a lot of power, but when an entire political party decides not to play at all there's only so much that could get done. It's a very unusual time in American politics to say the least.

I see so we haven't been able to see the full power of a president in some time. I think voting in MPs and the President being determined based off of that would be really useful here. :/

 

[Box of Kittens]

Probably the single most significant limitation on the President is that they cannot introduce any legislation. It must pass through both houses of Congress first before they can sign it and since electing the President and electing Congress are completely separate, you can end up with a divided government where one party controls the presidency and the other has at least partial control of Congress. Indeed, the government in the US has been divided more often than not since 1969.

However, there are still a lot of powers that are reserved for the President and as far as those powers are concerned, they can override their cabinet if they really want to.

 

[DrRussian]

If only the other candidates were asked questions like this.

 

[Jindrax]

The ignorance in this thread is baffling

 

[Suikoguy]

The ignorance in this thread is baffling

Idealism in politics kinda requires a degree of ignorance though, so is it really all that baffling?

If you want idealism, your only option is a dictatorship. Politics is an exercise in compromise, when you take that away when do you actually have?

 

[excelsiorlef]

No. The presidency is far more powerful than a prime minister would be.

Incorrect, a PM with a majority can basically pass whatever the fuck he wants within reason.

 

[Demy]

Stil voting Bernie. Not out of stubbornness. The choice is clear when he is set next to Hillary and Donald.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Its become more and more obvious that everyone was so caught up in the Bernie hype that no one actually vetted this man who wants to be president.

I think we can all agree that Bernie sanders is probably a good guy that wants the best for his country. But this man shouldn't be within 500 ft of the presidency. He's just not qualified.

It's very shortsighted to say he isn't qualified. Why don't you go look up what he did in the offices he held before you say whom is qualified or not.

At least he knows how email works, unlike another democratic candidate.

 

[Drek]

People don't seem to be reading this.

And people shouldn't, because it isn't very good.

Konczal avoids the realities of the platform here. Sanders can't campaign on re-instituting Glass-Steagall, legislation that specifically dictates what shape or form a financial institution can take, and then say he has no input on what shape or form a financial institution can take.

The three point plan given on how to break up banks falls apart completely with Sanders' refusal to define "too big". That line needs to be drawn intelligently and with valid proof that it is a real threat threshold, not just a number he's picking out of a hat. The Sherrod Brown proposal of 2-3% of GDP would have allowed for some of the biggest lending crisis failures to still exist for example, so what would be the point of that other than undercutting political opposition to Sanders' anti-corporation message?

And is he just going to demand that the FDIC claim the "living wills" standard required by Dodd-Frank is not being met? How the hell is that going to legally work? What Konczal is advocating in this article is an absurd overreach of POTUS authority.

You don't need to have read the ruling on MetLife to have a valid opinion on what the ruling alone may indicate. For Sanders this should have been a homerun question, what with his stated view that Dodd-Frank does not go far enough. This was a great opportunity to reiterate that and expand on how if MetLife can dodge "too big to fail" status based on not being a principally lending institution, then the legislation has too sizable a weak link to be effective. Instead he just whiffs.

And on criminal convictions he just sounds like a person who doesn't get how the law actually works. People need to break crimes to be prosecuted. Just because you find their methods of making money morally repugnant doesn't mean you can charge them with a crime for that. The laws didn't exist at the time investment managers were intentionally taking on bad bets for short term gain. This is a huge problem because Sanders clearly underestimates his opposition to his own downfall. The banking sector is a conflation of the best minds legal, accounting, and economic minds with a literal focus on gaming the system. That's their right - to poke and prod and exploit and misconstrue everything they can get away with in search of a competitive edge. Wanting them retroactively punished for skirting but not breaking the laws is simply unconstitutional. But that's not all, it leads Sanders to believe in his policies, like the transaction tax, will work at face value and will in no way be gamed by these same people, when their entire job is to do just that.

Lazy article by Konczal and in no way good cover for Sanders' lack of core specifics. This was an issue lurking beyond the treeline for quite some time now. Barnie Frank has been asking journalists in interviews if they'll ever ask Sanders to define "too big" because he actually knows what he's talking about and he knows Sanders can't do it. If your entire platform starts and ends with "too big to fail is too big to exist" you need to be able to define "too big".

 

[dave is ok]

I can't believe this thread still has that awful title.

 

[B-Dubs]

Incorrect, a PM with a majority can basically pass whatever the fuck he wants within reason.

The presidency has more powers than a PM does, that's what I mean. Besides, anyone can get shit done within reason if they have a majority and the other side isn't made up of children.

 

[UFO]

And on criminal convictions he just sounds like a person who doesn't get how the law actually works. People need to break crimes to be prosecuted. Just because you find their methods of making money morally repugnant doesn't mean you can charge them with a crime for that. The laws didn't exist at the time investment managers were intentionally taking on bad bets for short term gain. This is a huge problem because Sanders clearly underestimates his opposition to his own downfall. The banking sector is a conflation of the best minds legal, accounting, and economic minds with a literal focus on gaming the system. That's their right - to poke and prod and exploit and misconstrue everything they can get away with in search of a competitive edge. Wanting them retroactively punished for skirting but not breaking the laws is simply unconstitutional. But that's not all, it leads Sanders to believe in his policies, like the transaction tax, will work at face value and will in no way be gamed by these same people, when their entire job is to do just that.

His point is that why would a company be willing to pay $5 billion to settle a claim if they hadn't done something wrong. And if what they did wasn't legally wrong at the time, why weren't laws in place to prevent it in the first place? Banks shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want unchecked and only pay the price when and if they get caught.

The banking sector is a conflation of the best minds legal, accounting, and economic minds with a literal focus on gaming the system. That's their right - to poke and prod and exploit and misconstrue everything they can get away with in search of a competitive edge.

You believe they have the right to exploit people? That we shouldn't stop the abuse that cause the financial collapse?

 

[eBay Huckster]

You believe they have the right to exploit people? That we shouldn't stop the abuse that cause the financial collapse?

more to the point, he thinks (with good reason, given history) that we CAN'T fully stop abuses - that eventually, whether it takes a year or ten, someone's gonna come up with a way to game even the sturdiest current regulations and then we're right back to square one