Dangansona
Member
The big one being that she was Hillary's co-campaign chair in 2008.
Sanders on breaking up banks "I have not studied... the legal implications of that"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
The big one being that she was Hillary's co-campaign chair in 2008.
Daily Intelligencer is New York magazine, while maybe not quite a household name, it's pretty damn well known, and not some random blog, and they have some well known political writers, like Jonathan Chait and Andrew Sullivan.
The DNC basically operates under controlled chaos/anarchy.
The "employees" basically are their own bosses, but typically tow the wishes of the "Board of Directors" so the company can move to have more assets around the country, but being their own bosses within the company, they only truly answer to their "customers".
The "employees" basically are their own bosses, but typically tow the wishes of the "Board of Directors" so the company can move to have more assets around the country, but being their own bosses within the company, they only truly answer to their "customers".
...she was appointed chair of the DNC 5 years ago. Was she supposed to quite because Hillary wanted to run for President?
....what? What are you talking about?
Dangansona
Member
I don't know what the best solution would be to be honest, but it just seems like a huge conflict of interest to me.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
You cut out my entire section on negative press, which is my counter to your counter about Trump's press. Yes, Donald Trump is all over the news, but that's not a good thing if you can't handle it. You can't be mad about Bernie's coverage unless you also stipulate that any coverage of him would help him. That's an assumption that you have to state for that argument.
You can't keep going back to "Trump gets all the headlines!" if I've already argued how that isn't usually a good thing for a candidate (and his favorables are atrocious. Literally the worst in history for a candidate. He's had a good run with his rabid, Southern Strategy base, but these headlines are going to come back to haunt him big in November).
And I do stand by my statement. Bernie is doing much worse than Hillary was in '08, and most people were calling for her to hang it up for weeks. The media loves a horse race though, so they aren't doing that to him. He needs to win every single state from here on out by about 15 points to win. That's just insane. So yes, the media is right to not continue painting this primary as a horse race. It's not close. It won't be in the end (as primaries go). Why would any journalist put their credibility on the line writing about a comeback that's horribly unlikely?
And you can't deny that this interview is terrible. His Israel answer was really illogical, and he legitimately doesn't know what some of the current laws about financial institutions say. If this kind of press would've been the usual, he'd have been buried by it.
But once again you are making accusations based on nothing. Now there is something wrong with DWS...because she worked on a campaign? If that were the case, no one would ever be allowed to work at the DNC.
How was my analogy of how the RNC/DNC not perfectly clear?
Board of Directors=Democratic leadership in the Cabinet/Congress
Being their own bosses=Ultimately they don't *have* to listen to the DNC. They are individuals at the end of the day.
Assets=Their states/representative districts
Customers=Constituents.
In no way is that an accurate representation of the DNC. Like, at all.
Dangansona
Member
Because she worked on the campaign of a presidential candidate, yes. Look, I appreciate this conversation, I have learned a few things about the DNC, but I don't want to spend anymore time on NeoGAF today and I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. Again, I don't know what the solution would be because no one deserves to lose their job on that merit alone. Maybe have someone take over in the interim during the primary process? I don't know.
Night Angel
Member
"You keep making great points and pointing out the flaws in my reasoning, but I'm tired of it so I guess I'll stop discussing this with you."
Dangansona
Member
I guess I should have stuck to the NeoGAF model of yelling at him all night and pretending like I know everything? Sorry I chose not to. Guess I shouldn't have said anything, but I expected some equivalent of "that shut him up" if I didn't.
Edit: also what was left to discuss?
Ok, we can be done. As a final note, the essential problem you are having is overestimating the DNC chair's power. I don't know what you think she can do, but she probebly can't do it. The DNC has been neutral in the primary, just as it is supposed to be. If you find any evidence to contrary, please let me know.
Monocle
Member
A sexy campaign promise glosses over a complex reality? Well I never.
Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Sanders' platform is built largely on hollow bluster. Correct and timely, but hollow. Change in this country is a slow process by design as much as by dysfunction. Bernie's revolution is an appealing fantasy. His lasting impact will be an incremental shift in public discourse that may have significant political and social effects over the next decade or two, but certainly won't bring about radical change in the first term of whoever ends up being elected. Including Bernie himself.
Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Sanders' platform is built largely on hollow bluster. Correct and timely, but hollow. Change in this country is a slow process by design as much as by dysfunction. Bernie's revolution is an appealing fantasy. His lasting impact will be an incremental shift in public discourse that may have significant political and social effects over the next decade or two, but certainly won't bring about radical change in the first term of whoever ends up being elected. Including Bernie himself.
BlastProcessing
Member
The fact that someone had to drive Bernie up a 15 mile high wall () to get him to say something kind of weak, the fact that it's about something as agreeable as breaking up the banks that are too big to exist without causing extreme risk for the entire country (as if it's not just an evolution of anti monopoly law, just with more realistic understanding that even a company with competition can be too big and powerful for a country's own good) the fact that people somehow say he is worse than Trump because of it who is the epitome of non-substantive talking points, makes me sick. Very disappointed GAF.
All the reporter did was ask Bernie How? and not let him avoid answering. Bernie is comfortable with Whats and Whys but until he can articulate some Hows it's hard to take him seriously. And yes, this is something that his rhetoric has in common with Trump's rhetoric.
Admittedly, this could definitely be wrong, but from what his colleagues are saying and some of his comments he does not seem like the type of person who takes criticism well, reflects on his thoughts and actions, and tries to change based on that criticism and self-reflection.
I wouldn't hold out hope that he will do better because those types of people generally don't do try to change and improve on the aspect that people have criticized. They rationalize their faults away.
I think he did things better after the black lives matter protests, even if it was too late to reverse his fortunes with minorities. So eh, maybe, maybe not. Who knows how he will respond to this one.
I live in Vancouver.
But I am currently living abroad in like 6 different countries (Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Dubai, Thailand, and Australia) for a year. Not a vacation, but living abroad. I'm on month 3 of 12. I may need to fly to SF for some business quickly but should be in Asia / Middle East / Australia entire time.
As for not having experienced the US, I have been to more US states then a good number of most of your citizens. I calculated it before but I think it's between 20 and 25 states traveled to for business. How many states have you visited?
The Democrats just shot themselves in the foot.
I don't know how much the rest of you know about American culture and politics (I'm an expert), but stupidity and backwardness are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in Canada where everyone is nice and the government is there for you. If you get screwed over in America, you are fucked, and the only way to get solve that is through pure luck.
What this means is the American youth, after hearing about what they are doing to Bernie, is not going to want to support Clinton and any democrat in the future. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but the democrats have alienated the entire youth demographic and their future with this move.
The Democrats must publicly apologize to Bernie Sanders and give him the nomination or else America is doomed.
Lol you should see his post in the primary thread.
He's visited so many states he's an expert in US politics
Box of Kittens
Banned
That post was a real doozy. Someone who lives such a privileged life arguing that Democrats in red states shouldn't have a say in who's the nominee? Especially given the demographics of the Democratic Party is a lot of those red states? What an out of touch thing to say.
Are we really comparing Trump to Sanders in this thread and wondering why one gets more airtime than the other and attributing it to some media conspiracy to prop one up over the other even though they aren't in the same race yet if ever?
A guy who says new crazy shit every other day and constantly runs at the mouth to anyone who listens vs a guy who pretty much gives the same speech over and over no matter what's going on in the primaries.
This isn't exactly rocket science here. News has become #entertainment for America. The majority of our citizens don't even bother looking at news channels unless some shooting or disaster happened or someone said something crazy. So let's be real here; Trump could run his own damn tv channel with all the things he's willing to say. Meanwhile Sanders may as well be a re-run of Threes Company.
A guy who says new crazy shit every other day and constantly runs at the mouth to anyone who listens vs a guy who pretty much gives the same speech over and over no matter what's going on in the primaries.
This isn't exactly rocket science here. News has become #entertainment for America. The majority of our citizens don't even bother looking at news channels unless some shooting or disaster happened or someone said something crazy. So let's be real here; Trump could run his own damn tv channel with all the things he's willing to say. Meanwhile Sanders may as well be a re-run of Threes Company.
Not this bullshit again.
Considering what actually happens when he gets media time, perhaps Bernie should be happy that he's supposedly being ignored by the media (he's not, by the way).
So the person I trust the most when it comes to analysis of fiscal policy is Mike Konczal, and I was curious what he thought about the Bernie interview.
Turns out he think Bernie's answers were largely correct.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/
I still think Bernie should have shown more to indicate he's thought through the consequences of breaking up the big banks, but for the most part I'm largely inclined to be persuaded by his argument.
Turns out he think Bernie's answers were largely correct.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/
I still think Bernie should have shown more to indicate he's thought through the consequences of breaking up the big banks, but for the most part I'm largely inclined to be persuaded by his argument.
IrishNinja
Member
high-tier trolling/flaming jackassery at its finest
this really has been the most thorough post of the thread, and i wanted to highlight & thank you for it
Wafflecakes
Member
I loled.
The best part is this is exactly how 90% of the Bernie supporters I know think.
What does the bolded mean?
brianjones
Member
why do people think they know more than presidential candidates?
if you're so smart run for office
if you're so smart run for office
travisbickle
Member
As someone who doesn't live in America so only hears about this on the internet, the opposition to Bernie Sanders seems more crazy.
I don't particularly care what you enjoy because as your response shows you either lack an understanding for what being POTUS actually entails or are willing to ingore that basic standard for a candidate you ideologically worship. As for the inference that you're a low information poster on this, I'll remove the inference and state it plainly: your arguments have lacked substance and you show a lack of ability to process the responses I have given you. I see no other way to assess that other than "low information poster".
Firstly, your response to point one is about three times longer than the point itself. I never said a POTUS candidate can't say things off the top without bouncing it off think tanks. I said they shouldn't do that with literally the core policy he's pushed from before the first day of his candidacy.
It's pathetic. Barack Obama was supposedly the most wet behind the years POTUS candidate in a generation if you were to believe Clinton in the Primary and McCain in the general. Obama knew his shit on literally every platform he supported. He was a junior senator in his first term. Sanders has been in DC for over two decades. He has had all of the resources to develop a mature and robust mission statement for his "break up the banks" policy and the best he's ever come up with is a two page "bill" completely devoid of details and pushing all understanding onto the Sec. of the Treasury.
He doesn't need to say the bad things, he needs to say SOME THING. What is one new market effect of such a policy? I mean something obvious like "banks won't be allowed to be larger than X percent of GDP" or "investment branches can't short the loans their mortgage bank is making". He doesn't even need to say how he would actually implement them, just a single real idea beyond "gotta breakup them banks!".
This is at the core of being POTUS. It is a job requiring next level thought on everything because you're literally overseeing EVERYTHING. If Sanders can't get to the next level as a POTUS candidate on his primary issue he is fundamentally unqualified for the job. His positions have all the nuance and substance to them of Ted Cruz' policies, just not the morally repugnant starting point.
And again, he literally needs to have an opinion and plan for the banks thereafter to make this work. You, like Sanders, are trying to twist that question into Bernie as their owner or CEO. That was not the question and that pivot was disingenuous for Sanders to make in the first place while being downright absurd for you to make, since I spelled out exactly what it meant in the point you're trying to rebut.
He shouldn't be deciding what their business model is post-breakup but he needs to know what their business is allowed to look like post-breakup. Why? Because he's already said he should. In his own words by supporting the re-institution of Glass-Steagall. That would require banks to break up along investment and lending lines as-is. He could have literally said "well first they would need to re-comply with Glass-Steagall" and there would have been something of an answer. But he's so goddamn incapable of talking real policy or specifics that he didn't even do that. Just "stronger economy".
Barnie Frank has been asking the media just about every time he's interviewed now why they refuse to ask Sanders what "too big to fail" really is. What is the line, in dollars, percent of GDP, percent of a specific key market, anything. Literally just one criteria for where to start on defining "too big to fail". The media refuses to ask because they want to perpetuate a closer race for ratings purposes, but this interview actually strays somewhat close to it and Sanders gives a complete non-answer.
He isn't ready to execute this plan. It shows. He claims that it's a day one agenda item though, and going by his previous bill he would force the Sec. of the Treasury to give him a list of "too big to fail" banks within 90 days along with having them broken up a year after that. He doesn't even know if 90 days would be enough to make a legitimate assessment. But that's the one specific he's chosen in the past. Not anything related to the actual policy, just a bullshit timeline.
And here is why I called you an apologist.
"you know that he doesn't see them panning out the way you do, or he would have different ones". Great. He's an ideologue who can't handle meaningful criticism. We've known that about Bernie Sanders for over twenty years. This is why Bernie Sanders hasn't accomplished a goddamn thing in congress or the senate, besides being one of the best pork belly spenders in a long time.
I'm not predicting the future. I'm pointing out the logical fallacies built into every one of his policies. They're incongruous with reality, but it sure does sound nice on a stump speech to say you're going to make Wall St. speculators pay for free tuition. Who cares that it's a complete fucking lie? Sounds nice right?
That's what Donald Trump does.
Obviously you aren't "always ready to say oh ok I understand". I'm not making conclusions here, I'm presenting the facts of his policies and showing the existing inherent flaws in them. It doesn't take any prognostication to say "hey, maybe chaining a fixed cost to a highly variable funding mechanism is a bad idea." Or "do you really think businesses are going to pay extra taxes AND hand over additional compensation to their employees to cover all these new taxes?" It doesn't take in depth analysis or projection into the future to see the gaping holes in his policies. They're all there for everyone to see from day one.
Bernie Sanders' breakup the banks bill that he actually put forth could be printed on a postcard.
1. Because I do, if by candidates you're including Sanders, Trump, and Cruz (the GOP field really).
2. Because my personal life and outspoken views would be political anathema to most Americans.
3. Also because I have better shit to do with my time, namely actively making the world a better place.
Manifest Destiny
Banned
Well technomancer chalk this up as another one of your misleading / badly titled thread.
At this point it's who's the lesser evil, we have a man who is feeding off the xenophobia of our country, a woman who thinks it's her turn just because she's a woman all while being deceptive, and a guy who has his head on straight but may be over ambitious.
Based off our experience from the past 8 years one of these is the safer bet.
At this point it's who's the lesser evil, we have a man who is feeding off the xenophobia of our country, a woman who thinks it's her turn just because she's a woman all while being deceptive, and a guy who has his head on straight but may be over ambitious.
Based off our experience from the past 8 years one of these is the safer bet.
You can't possibly really think this. You really think Clinton doesn't see herself as qualified for governance in any way other than being around for a while and having a vagina? This kind of low effort nonsense is getting tiring. Clinton talks about her time as a senator all the time. She talks about her experience as SoS all the time as relevant to her presidential bid. It's a core part of her campaign. Your comment says more about how you feel about a woman president than it does about how Clinton feels about it. Can you imagine what it would sound like saying that Obama only wanted to be president because he was black? Rediculous
balladofwindfishes
Member
Hey, speak of the devil.
On the radio news today they were talking about it. They announced his win last night, but added a note that it was basically impossible for him to catch up at this point.
Krauser Kat
Member
Obama had a plan though. Close Gitmo, Move prisoners to federal penitentiaries. Congress bitched a fit, said no keep them out of my state.
That is still how it has to happen.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Hey wait, no, Bernie supports can't use this line of thinking, sorry.
His supporters can't spend months saying "Hillary needs to earn my vote, just saying she's better than the GOP isn't enough! Stop using the lesser evil argument" and turn around and use the same argument to push for Bernie.
Yeah but he didn't exactly campaign on only doing it at the pleasure of Congress. By the standards Sanders is being held to that would be either dishonest or stupid.
It's pretty sexist to define the male candidates by their actions and aspirations and define the female candidate by her gender and the eternal accusation of "women being liars".
She was a Senator and Secretary of State. She's got better "qualifications" for the job than Obama did.
I don't even like Hillary Clinton, but this is some sexist bullshit.
Doing something for months has never stopped Bernie supporters from switching tactics when it suits them. Just like the "Superdelegates are Undemocratic" nonsense until they needed their votes or "caucuses are Undemocratic" until Bernie started winning them. His entire campaign has been an exercise in opportunism and it shows with his supporters. Anytime they or their candidate is shown to be unprepared for the realities of the system they chose to run in, they simply call the entire system fucked and add it to the list of establishments that must be destroyed en route to the Oval Office. This is nothing new and I'm sure it won't end here.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
There's more than just a bit of nuance lacking in this comparison...
Says a lot about his candidacy and how "genuine" it really is.
The observation that superdelegates are un-democratic (something which is obviously true) does not preclude the need to still win them - it doesn't make Bernie a hypocrite, did he ever say he would win without them? That would be insane.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll