Support NeoGAF

[Manifest Destiny]

So what if she said that? Who cares? She has listed many reasons she should be president. You single out the one you want to paint her with and exclude everything else. What is wrong with someone voting for a woman for a list of reasons including that they want more representation for women? Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Just because you think the glass ceiling has been shattered and women shouldn't push the idea of equal representation in the highest levels of government, you misrepresent her own motivations for running down to her gender? I don't give myself any credit here, because it took zero effort to notice your blatantly sexist comment and call it out appropriately.

I care and so do many others as you can see by the backlash she has begun to get.

But I can see how you interpret things won't result into anything worthwhile so I'll leave it at that. But as a tip for the future when you casually throw words like sexist around it makes you look clownish and lessens the reaction you're desperately trying to reach for.

 

[Clefargle]

If people don't point it out, they would be accommodating your sexist nonsense. Accusing others of 'desperation' does not rebut the specific criticism I made, which is that you evaluated the male candidates by their actions and aspirations, but reduced the female candidate to her gender and your characterization of her as a 'liar'.

Rather than doubling down and considering yourself righteous and other people 'weaksauce', you might want to reconsider your words and maybe think about whether or not you should rephrase yourself. You're getting the benefit of the doubt that you're being stupid rather than deliberately odious. Among the candidates, in raw resume form there is no one more qualified for the position than Hillary Clinton. But the thing you attribute to her is just her gender and you call her a liar, which is typically sexist. If you are going to argue, argue on policy.

It must have been nice and comfortable for you to not have to hear Obama talk about what it means to become the first black president. As long as you don't have to hear about it you can humor him? If he had talked about it, would you say, "Gosh, I wish he would stop thinking he should be president because he's black"? What a conceit.

Agreed 100% but lol I think I'm the one that said weaksauce lol

I care and so do many others as you can see by the backlash she has begun to get.

But I can see how you interpret things won't result into anything worthwhile so I'll leave it at that. But as a tip for the future when you casually throw words like sexist around it makes you look clownish and lessens the reaction you're desperately trying to reach for.

What is wrong with voting for a woman because you want to see more female presidents when you also have many other reasons to vote for them? I do. Explain why that is wrong instead of running off.

 

[Boney]

Van Jones spot on as usual

There's a second video on of the same panel where he's discussing the rising legitimacy of the white nationalist power movement and how worrying it is. Pretty spot on as well, not being in CNN gets him a lot more leeway in what he can say.

 

[egruntz]

She doesn't need to pretend, she actually knows the answers. It's not like Bernie was asked to name the President of khazakstan's brother's name. Breaking up the banks is one of his central campaign themes, that he can't answer such simple questions show his and his team's incompetence. He shows time and again that he has minimal knowledge on any details, but the biggest problem is he seems completely uninterested in even learning.

She actually knows the answers? Hardly. Her voting record is rather bad as far as judgment goes. She is the worst flip-flopper in politics I've ever observed, under the guise of "evolving" on stances. She never takes firm stances and is easily swayed, and when asked for clear, cut-and-dry answers on some serious issues (e.g. fracking), her response is bombastic and clearly tries to pander to as many people as she can. She knows what to say. She does not know the answers.

In contrast, Bernie has been firm in practically every single stance he's taken — perhaps except for gun control — and often is on the right side of history even when it's not politically advantageous. The same cannot be said for Hillary.

And again, his response was that he doesn't know the legal implications of the Federal Reserve breaking up the banks. Why would he bother looking into that? That's not the route he'll go. There are current laws in place that he can utilize to the fullest extent — i.e. Dodd-Frank. No reason wasting time dabbling in irrelevant technicalities.

 

[Wall]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

A somewhat less biased take on the interview from the Upshot blog of the New York Times - hardly a pro-Sander's rag. The only questionable part of the interview is if you interpret one of his statements to mean that he thinks Dodd-Frank would give him the power. In my view, that would be a tenuous interpretation of his statements given his legislative record, which includes the introduction of a bill granting that power to the Secretary under Dodd-Frank and directing the Secretary of Treasurey to do draw up such a list and act on it. The author of the article appears to agree with me. Again, this is the New York Times, not some pro-Sanders rag. It should probably be in the OP.

I do wish Sanders was quicker on his feet with policy details. He doesn't come as across as polished as Clinton. This is too much, though. Why stoop to trying to manufacture a Dean Scream moment out of a hostile interview from the editorial board of a right wing New York tabloid? The Clinton campaign is still on track to win the nomination. Attacking Sanders isn't going to fix her fundraising problems.

I'll vote for whoever the Democat is, but this primary just makes me depressed about this country.

 

[Matt]

To your first sentence, I was never talking about Biden. I was talking about potential candidates that never got the "will he run?!" buzz he did. To your second sentence, that's all I've been trying to imply to Matt in our discussion, not that the DNC has power to force anyone not to compete.

But then this is just a conspiracy theory, with no facts or real logic to back it up. And to insult an organization and the people that make it work just to push your own agenda based on nothing is pretty gross. It bothers me a lot, and I'm not going to ignore it.

 

[NimbusD]

This is the specific question OP got his quote from. And according to wiki, Daily news isn't even correct about MetLife, as they were brought under the stricter regulations and their appeal to get out failed.

This keeps getting brought up every so often in this thread, that the entire premise of this thread is bunk, but then Hillary supporters just brush it away and go on into other arguments against Bernie. Honestly even if you are tearing this interview apart, which is fine, it's not great, you're fueling this argument with a misleading quote that incorrectly characterizes Bernie's stance and knowledge of his platform. Title really should have been changed a while ago, but I suppose it's too late now.

 

[Justin]

She actually knows the answers? Hardly. Her voting record is rather bad as far as judgment goes. She is the worst flip-flopper in politics I've ever observed, under the guise of "evolving" on stances. She never takes firm stances and is easily swayed, and when asked for clear, cut-and-dry answers on some serious issues (e.g. fracking), her response is bombastic and clearly tries to pander to as many people as she can. She knows what to say. She does not know the answers.

In contrast, Bernie has been firm in practically every single stance he's taken — perhaps except for gun control — and often is on the right side of history even when it's not politically advantageous. The same cannot be said for Hillary

It's funny that you use the fracking response as an example of Hillary pandering when in reality she gave a nuanced answer that laid out some of the conditions that would need to be meet in order for fracking to continue.

Bernie on the other hand gives a one sentence response that leads to a large applause break.

Transcript!

CLINTON: You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.

So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, you...

SANDERS: My answer — my answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.

By the way directly after that Bernie changes the topic by pivoting to a piece directly lifted from his stump about climate change.

 

[Wall]

It's funny that you use the fracking response as an example of Hillary pandering when in reality she gave a nuanced answer that laid out some of the conditions that would need to be meet in order for fracking to continue.

Bernie on the other hand gives a one sentence response that leads to a large applause break.

Transcript!



By the way directly after that Bernie changes the topic by pivoting to a piece directly lifted from his stump about climate change.

A quick googling reveals that the Federal government and 14 states already require disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking operations. My guess is those 14 states overlap pretty neatly with where fracking takes place.

Someone could make Clinton look uniformed on this issue based on the last criterion she enumerated alone if they were to read her statement uncharitably.

 

[AndyD]

A quick googling reveals that the Federal government and 14 states already require disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking operations. My guess is those 14 states overlap pretty neatly with where fracking takes place.

Someone could make Clinton look uniformed on this issue based on the last criterion she enumerated alone if they were to read her statement uncharitably.

I think they are still allowed to withhold certain listings if proprietary though. But you have a point, though she never said none are being done, just that they should be pre-requisites.

 

[Boney]

Tom Hartmann presents a pretty quick rundown on how this interview is being used as a terrible smear campaign by decontextualizing the interview. Plus you get to watch Hillary spin spin spin the wheel.

http://youtu.be/XGMuZ6JFgaA

Basically, NYTImes weigh in on his current legislation and how to break the banks and agree it's fine. NY Daily News messed up on the question regarding the banks and mixed stuff up so it's no wonder he's confused. Plus goes into how they're smearing on his gun issues when he said nothing of the sort.

Honestly one of the Hill mods should've changed the title already.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Juan Gonzales from Democracy Now! Was at this interview and here's their take on it. Saying that while the interview was incredibly aggressive and fast paced with different questions coming from different people, Bernie managed great under pressure, but he does name the specific banking issue as the big blunder.

I'm pretty inclined to think that the editorial team was being much more aggressive that one how regular interviews go to try to make him slip up /tinfoil hat

http://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

This isn't coach pitch; it's the big leagues. Asking a candidate a question about how he intends to implement something from his platform and then not allowing him to avoid answering the question is not gotcha journalism. The fact that Sanders hasn't been pressed on this earlier shows how easy the press has been on him thus far.

Running for President is extremely mentally and physically demanding, but it's nothing compared to the demands of actually doing the job. Sanders needs to be able to handle something as trivial as quick fire questions pertaining to a subject that he regularly campaigns on as one of his strengths.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

I hope those of you defending Bernie for not having a considerably detailed plan on how he hopes to achieve the breaking up of banks as well as its consequences realize that's equivalent to a PhD student spending years of research and academia on a particular issue, only to not have learned shit in the end.

Bernie has been in Congress for over 20 years, enough time to earn 4-5 PhDs, yet on his central and most pivotal issues, he barely knows enough to earn a BA.

 

[Armaros]

Tom Hartmann presents a pretty quick rundown on how this interview is being used as a terrible smear campaign by decontextualizing the interview. Plus you get to watch Hillary spin spin spin the wheel.

http://youtu.be/XGMuZ6JFgaA

Basically, NYTImes weigh in on his current legislation and how to break the banks and agree it's fine. NY Daily News messed up on the question regarding the banks and mixed stuff up so it's no wonder he's confused. Plus goes into how they're smearing on his gun issues when he said nothing of the sort.

Honestly one of the Hill mods should've changed the title already.

So literally copy and pasting an entire transcript is decontextualizing an interview?

Bernie needs news organizations to write his arguments for him instead of having the arguments ready in an interview?

If he knew enough about the subject he would be able to pick up on inconsistencies in the questions and answer correctly.

not "I don't know or haven't looked into it"

 

[ezrarh]

I hope those of you defending Bernie for not having a considerably detailed plan on how he hopes to achieve the breaking up of banks as well as its consequences realize that's equivalent to a PhD student spending years of research and academia on a particular issue, only to not have learned shit in the end.

Bernie has been in Congress for over 20 years, enough time to earn 4-5 PhDs, yet on his central and most pivotal issues, he barely knows enough to earn a BA.

Isn't this already the case with most PhDs?

 

[Silvard]

I'm not in any camp (although I have my reservations about all the candidates) but I don't understand how anyone can deny this interview is very unflattering.

Saying the interview was aggressive or that he got confused are horrible ways to defend Bernie's extremely lackluster showing here.

 

[ShironRedshift]

The best part of that interview is his reason for not holding Israel accountable for their disproportionate response in 2014 leading to the deaths of 10,000 civilians (his number) is because "Look, why don't I support a million things in the world?" Wow!

Indeed. That answer was just... stunning. I'm curious what Sanders' supporters feel about his answer to that question in particular since, while I quite possibly could have missed it, I don't think I've seen anyone even attempt to tackle that one yet. Hillary would have been raked through the coals (and rightly so) if she gave an answer so arrogant and haughty as that, so I'm genuinely curious how Sanders' supporters feel about his response to the Israel question here.

 

[Boney]

So literally copy and pasting an entire transcript is decontextualizing an interview?

Bernie needs news organizations to write his arguments for him instead of having the arguments ready in an interview?

If he knew enough about the subject he would be able to pick up on inconsistencies in the questions and answer correctly.

not "I don't know or haven't looked into it"

The gun thing was decontextualized. Did you see how Hillary was spinning his stance on guns? Was pretty disgusting.

The bank one was confusing because the premise was wrong. And sure I guess he could've realized there was an inconsistency in the question but I'm sure no one democratic president candidate has made a minor slip up on an interview that's being blown out waaaay out of proportion.

And I'm just saying he already has the adequate legislation to break up the banks and NYTimes says it's legit. The media answer is a pretty simple consumer media is biased. Like how WPost ran 16 negative Bernie stories in 16 hours or how the NYTimes edited the fairly positive article about him in May and changed it into a hit piece in hours, in which the senior editor had to come in and call bs at the changes.

 

[Piecake]

The gun thing was decontextualized. Did you see how Hillary was spinning his stance on guns? Was pretty disgusting.

The bank one was confusing because the premise was wrong. And sure I guess he could've realized there was an inconsistency in the question but I'm sure no one democratic president candidate has made a minor slip up on an interview that's being blown out waaaay out of proportion.

The whole freaking interview is the problem, not just that one little question. He doesnt know how he is going to break up the banks and his position on Israel is a muddled mess. That is why a lot of people are disturbed about because he comes across as a person who is all big ideas but no substance and no idea how to actually implement any of those ideas in that interview.

Christ, talk about spin...

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...rnie-sanders-walks-a-fine-line-on-gun-control

And he doesnt have a very 'progressive' stance on guns.

 

[RustyNails]

Tom Hartmann presents a pretty quick rundown on how this interview is being used as a terrible smear campaign by decontextualizing the interview. Plus you get to watch Hillary spin spin spin the wheel.

http://youtu.be/XGMuZ6JFgaA

Basically, NYTImes weigh in on his current legislation and how to break the banks and agree it's fine. NY Daily News messed up on the question regarding the banks and mixed stuff up so it's no wonder he's confused. Plus goes into how they're smearing on his gun issues when he said nothing of the sort.

Honestly one of the Hill mods should've changed the title already.

Hill mods?

Also lets not pretend that Bernie did not have multiple chances to clear up any confusion. The answer is plain: he is not a policy wonk like Obama or Hillary. He is about the big picture. I dont mean this as a dig. He is more about the direction than legislation. He feels like big banks are bad and need to be broken up, but he would leave that to do lawmakers to craft the deal. He wont be a part of the negotiations and wont be holding something similar to Obama's healthcare summit with Cantor and Boehner and field every single critical technical policy question from the Republicans for 6 hours.

 

[the-pi-guy]

The whole freaking interview is the problem, not just that one little question. He doesnt know how he is going to break up the banks and his position on Israel is a muddled mess. That is why a lot of people are disturbed about because he comes across as a person who is all big ideas but no substance and no idea how to actually implement any of those ideas in that interview.

No one knows how to break up the banks.
How exactly is his position on Israel a muddled mess?

Christ, talk about spin...

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...rnie-sanders-walks-a-fine-line-on-gun-control

And he doesnt have a very 'progressive' stance on guns.

I'm not sure why his stance on guns matters.

 

[Boney]

The whole freaking interview is the problem, not just that one little question. He doesnt know how he is going to break up the banks and his position on Israel is a muddled mess. That is why a lot of people are disturbed about because he comes across as a person who is all big ideas but no substance and no idea how to actually implement any of those ideas in that interview.

Christ, talk about spin...

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...rnie-sanders-walks-a-fine-line-on-gun-control

And he doesnt have a very 'progressive' stance on guns.

But he does know how he's going to break up the banks there's legislation in place. Did he handle it well when being pushed with details? Not really. Same as the Israel issue. He's not up for a unilateral support on Israel and allowing for the War Crimes to keep going so he wants the illegal settlements withdrawn and he'll have to negotiate that. There's nothing wrong with that.

And sure he dismisses both stuff like a grouchy old man, but the thing is with interviews you're only gonna have some 20-30 minutes at most to talk before being on the trail again so you don't wanna get pigeon holes into one issue, which with Bernie they go a lot for (like asking 5 questions about Castro so people realize he's a commie). So he knows he needs to shift the subject harshly to keep going for his regular bullet list of issues because you wanna reach with all of your issues to the potential reader. None of these interviews with political candidates have any depth partly because the readers interested would be a lot less and that overall it doesn't help the campaign much. If you want detailed overview of the policies you can read up the literature.

And for the guns, yeah he's not 100% ban on guns which is a shame for me, but he's pretty much the same as Obama. Ban assault weapons, close the Gun show loophole, make record checks a lot harsher and scrutinous. Vermont has one of the least gun deaths in America apparently, and yes it is rural but it's exactly why he's not banning guns out right (that and the second amendment), some people like to go hunting.

Hillary's spin is playing the sandy hook incident saying Bernie says the parents can't have the gun makers accountable, which is false. The question was if they could be sued and he said that if the gun was sold legally then no it shouldn't be able to be used but that there needs to be a much harsher check on what is being sold and if anything funny shows up then yes they should be able to sue. Hillary is known to spin stuff, framed Bernie with the "he doesn't think abortion is a big issue to discuss" and the auto bailout bill saying he was against it.

 

[Piecake]

No one knows how to break up the banks.
How exactly is his position on Israel a muddled mess?

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: 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.

I'm not sure why his stance on guns matters.

He has no idea if we have the authority now to break up the banks, and if we do, who has that authority. Moreover, he has absolutely no plan or guidelines or regulations on what to follow to break up those banks once the the people who 'have' that power start breaking up the banks. His whole plan is to determine if its too big to fail and just have individuals in power break up the banks without any sort of guidelines or template.

I have no idea how that is acceptable.

As for Israel, just read that portion of the interview. It is pretty obvious that he hasn't thought a great deal on it and certainly isn't going to put any time into it if he is elected president.

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.

He thinks the settlements are illegal based on existing treaties and ideas, but is going to do nothing because Israel is an independent nation that is apparently above International Law?

Either that is deeply disturbing or his position is a muddled mess. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to speak out against settlements, but doesn't want to come down too hard against Israel because it would hurt him with the general electorate. The result is a position that doesnt make much sense

To this debate it really isn't relevant, but the person who I was responding to brought it up so I responded. It certainly matters

 

[Boney]

His foreign policy is based on not policing and demanding other countries at gun point. But it's pretty simple thing that if they don't comply with UN sanctioned stuff the Us will withdraw a lot of support to pressure them.

Wait a a second I hadn't actually read the full interview. What's so outrageous about that? Dodd Frank would allow for the assessment of the too big to fail and the Treasury department would be overseeing it. Cause you have to deal with it on a case by case basis.

The only confusing thing is the authority question but he evades it because Dodd frank should be enough right? I'm not from the US so I don't exactly know the details on Dodd frank. But it sounds pretty reasonable to me..

 

[Piecake]

But he does know how he's going to break up the banks there's legislation in place. Did he handle it well when being pushed with details? Not really. Same as the Israel issue. He's not up for a unilateral support on Israel and allowing for the War Crimes to keep going so he wants the illegal settlements withdrawn and he'll have to negotiate that. There's nothing wrong with that.

What legislation? If you are talking about Dodd-Frank, it seems like he has no idea how that actually works.

And sure he dismisses both stuff like a grouchy old man, but the thing is with interviews you're only gonna have some 20-30 minutes at most to talk before being on the trail again so you don't wanna get pigeon holes into one issue, which with Bernie they go a lot for (like asking 5 questions about Castro so people realize he's a commie). So he knows he needs to shift the subject harshly to keep going for his regular bullet list of issues because you wanna reach with all of your issues to the potential reader. None of these interviews with political candidates have any depth partly because the readers interested would be a lot less and that overall it doesn't help the campaign much. If you want detailed overview of the policies you can read up the literature.

Spin spin spin

I want to know if a Candidate can explain how he is going to implement his big ideas and if he understands how government actually functions from his mouth. Those are important ideas and important decisions because a person who is only solely concerned with the big ideas and doesn't actually pay attention to policy is going to be heavily reliant on his advisers. Moreover, if he hasn't read through Dodd-Frank and doesn't understand who in the government has power to do this, then how can I trust him to actually read the bills that come to his desk, think about them critically and decide if the pluses outweigh the minuses? I don't want him getting a 3 page cliff-notes of a massive bill from a lackey adviser and him using that to make a decision.

And for the guns, yeah he's not 100% ban on guns which is a shame for me, but he's pretty much the same as Obama. Ban assault weapons, close the Gun show loophole, make record checks a lot harsher and scrutinous. Vermont has one of the least gun deaths in America apparently, and yes it is rural but it's exactly why he's not banning guns out right (that and the second amendment), some people like to go hunting.

Hillary's spin is playing the sandy hook incident saying Bernie says the parents can't have the gun makers accountable, which is false. The question was if they could be sued and he said that if the gun was sold legally then no it shouldn't be able to be used but that there needs to be a much harsher check on what is being sold and if anything funny shows up then yes they should be able to sue. Hillary is known to spin stuff, framed Bernie with the "he doesn't think abortion is a big issue to discuss" and the auto bailout bill saying he was against it.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/

Suicide and gun ownership is much more positively correlated than gun murders.

 

[Wall]

I think they are still allowed to withhold certain listings if proprietary though. But you have a point, though she never said none are being done, just that they should be pre-requisites.

Yup, you are right. I'll edit the answer for her with the simplest charitable interpretation.

I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what every chemicals they are using

I actually think this is what Clinton meant knowing that background. Even taken in context, though, the statement is odd and somewhat vague.

Anyway, here is a short quote from the New York Times article (their politics and policy blog) I quoted looking at Sanders's statements in the context of his legislative history:

New York Times - Peter Eavis
In the interview, with The Daily News’s editorial board, Mr. Sanders does appear to get tangled up in some details and lacks clarity. Breaking up the banks would involve arcane and complex regulatory moves that can trip up any banking policy wonk, let alone a presidential candidate. But, taken as a whole, Mr. Sanders’s answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year.

The article is titled "Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks".

So, he didn't give a great answer, but saying he "doesn't know how to break up the banks" is overstating the case. Also, apparently the people asking the questions were getting details wrong. Often answering questions is difficult when the people asking the questions don't know what they are asking.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?referer=https://www.google.com/&_r=0

Hill mods?

Also lets not pretend that Bernie did not have multiple chances to clear up any confusion. The answer is plain: he is not a policy wonk like Obama or Hillary. He is about the big picture. I dont mean this as a dig. He is more about the direction than legislation. He feels like big banks are bad and need to be broken up, but he would leave that to do lawmakers to craft the deal. He wont be a part of the negotiations and wont be holding something similar to Obama's healthcare summit with Cantor and Boehner and field every single critical technical policy question from the Republicans for 6 hours.

There is truth here. I think Sanders is clearly more interested in pushing big picture ideas than focusing on small details. I also think Clinton is clearly more comfortable discussing policy details off the top of her head than he is. I wouldn't say Sanders is a policy lightweight, though.

 

[Piecake]

His foreign policy is based on not policing and demanding other countries at gun point. But it's pretty simple thing that if they don't comply with UN sanctioned stuff the Us will withdraw a lot of support to pressure them.

Where does he say that? He certainly doesnt say that in the interview.

Wait a a second I hadn't actually read the full interview. What's so outrageous about that? Dodd Frank would allow for the assessment of the too big to fail and the Treasury department would be overseeing it. Cause you have to deal with it on a case by case basis.

The only confusing thing is the authority question but he evades it because Dodd frank should be enough right? I'm not from the US so I don't exactly know the details on Dodd frank. But it sounds pretty reasonable to me..

Because he is confused about how Dodd Frank works. He doesnt know who has power and what can be done with it. That is deeply disturbing that a Senator who voted for the freakin bill and is on an issue he deeply cares about has no clear idea how it actually works. And someone can correct me if I am wrong, but you can't use Dodd-Frank to start breaking up banks tomorrow. Thresholds have to be met, crises have to happen, etc.

If Sanders wants to break up the banks in his first year of his presidency then he is going to need something else. And his 4 page legislation is definitely not going to cut it because it is a political piece, not a serious legislature bill

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/bernie-sanders-break-banks-too-big-fail

But amid the hoopla, a simple question has been missed: Even if you support the goal behind the proposal, is his plan to break up Wall Street at all feasible?

"The bill doesn't actually have a plan," says Michael Greenberger, a former financial regulator at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a law professor at the University of Maryland. "It defers to financial regulators to develop the plan. So really, there is no plan."

Liberal financial reform warriors certainly appreciate Sanders' spirit and tend to agree with the sentiment of the bill. But they can't really explain whether or how it would work. "It's hard to think through what the consequences of it are," says Mike Konczal, a fellow at the progressive Roosevelt Institute.

The bill vaguely directs one branch of the executive branch's regulators to identify which banks are too big, and then gives the treasury secretary a year to figure out the best way to disassemble each institution—without any sort of guidance on how the treasury secretary should go about divvying up these companies into smaller chunks.

"How do you break them up? That is a question that deserves careful attention," says Bart Naylor, a financial policy advocate at the consumer group Public Citizen, which has endorsed Sanders' bill. "If you let the judgment of human beings be the entire determinant, it is subject too much to politics. If you let a treasury secretary by himself [decide], that won't be good enough. There need to be more clear guardrails to what the size would be."

Naylor adds, "When you are leaving it to judgment, you are leaving it to politicking. And while I don't think judgment should be abolished, I think that clear lines are preferable."

 

[Prinz Eugn]

But he does know how he's going to break up the banks there's legislation in place. Did he handle it well when being pushed with details? Not really. Same as the Israel issue. He's not up for a unilateral support on Israel and allowing for the War Crimes to keep going so he wants the illegal settlements withdrawn and he'll have to negotiate that. There's nothing wrong with that.

And sure he dismisses both stuff like a grouchy old man, but the thing is with interviews you're only gonna have some 20-30 minutes at most to talk before being on the trail again so you don't wanna get pigeon holes into one issue, which with Bernie they go a lot for (like asking 5 questions about Castro so people realize he's a commie). So he knows he needs to shift the subject harshly to keep going for his regular bullet list of issues because you wanna reach with all of your issues to the potential reader. None of these interviews with political candidates have any depth partly because the readers interested would be a lot less and that overall it doesn't help the campaign much. If you want detailed overview of the policies you can read up the literature.

Boy, someone did not read the thread.

Cliff's notes version: His understanding of existing financial regulatory law seems somewhat shaky, the bills he's written on the subject are impractically under-specified ("let the Secretary of the Treasury figure it out"), and Hillary's website information on the subject of financial reform is an order of magnitude more detailed than anything Bernie has.

Flubbing some specifics is pretty normal for politicians, but being unable to articulate much of any detail on something extremely central to your platform is not a good sign. It at least shows that he needs to figure out how to explain himself better, beyond just the big picture.

Bernie should have come across as an expert, because theoretically he should be one. Yet, he didn't. This was a small-ish meeting with an editorial board, not a stump speech to a crowd. It's exactly the kind of place where you need to be able to discuss things in more depth.

 

[BlastProcessing]

His foreign policy is based on not policing and demanding other countries at gun point. But it's pretty simple thing that if they don't comply with UN sanctioned stuff the Us will withdraw a lot of support to pressure them.

Wait a a second I hadn't actually read the full interview. What's so outrageous about that? Dodd Frank would allow for the assessment of the too big to fail and the Treasury department would be overseeing it. Cause you have to deal with it on a case by case basis.

The only confusing thing is the authority question but he evades it because Dodd frank should be enough right? I'm not from the US so I don't exactly know the details on Dodd frank. But it sounds pretty reasonable to me..

Am I reading this wrong, or have you been posting arguments about something that you hadn't even read? How would you even know what was spin and what wasn't?

 

[Wall]

Because he is confused about how Dodd Frank works. He doesnt know who has power and what can be done with it. That is deeply disturbing that a Senator who voted for the freakin bill and is on an issue he deeply cares about has no clear idea how it actually works. And someone can correct me if I am wrong, but you can't use Dodd-Frank to start breaking up banks tomorrow. Thresholds have to be met, crises have to happen, etc. [/url]

The New York Times article I quoted mentioned that theoretically the fed could raise capital requirements for the largest banks so high that they would effectively be forced to break up; however, that course of action would face legal difficulties. The article doesn't say it is impossible though.

Based on the article putting the conversation in the context of bill he proposed, however, I don't think that is what Sanders meant. I think what he was saying is that either you pass legislation to break up the banks or you give authority to the Secretary of Treasury to do that under Dodd-Frank. The bill Sanders proposed does that. If he thought the secretary of Treasury already had that authority under Dodd-Frank, why would he say they need to be "given" the authority? Sanders wasn't exactly clear, but that is what I think he meant given the context of the discussion and the legislation he introduced.

Also, while I agree that the bill Sanders proposed wasn't a serious bill, it isn't unusual for laws to be written in terms of broad objectives and then leave the details of implementation to regulatory agencies. There are good reasons for that.

 

[Particle Physicist]

This is including sneaky Republican SuperPAC antics.

Hillary's Priorities USA Action SuperPAC has far more money invested than the Nurse SuperPAC that is trying to assist Sanders. This article is bunk.

You initially said that Bernie does not use superPACs. Now they just don't spend as much as Hillary superPACs.....

 

[Piecake]

The New York Times article I quoted mentioned that theoretically the fed could raise capital requirements for the largest banks so high that they would effectively be forced to break up; however, that course of action would face legal difficulties. The article doesn't say it is impossible though.

Based on the article putting the conversation in the context of bill he proposed, however, I don't think that is what Sanders meant. I think what he was saying is that either you pass legislation to break up the banks or you give authority to the Secretary of Treasury to do that under Dodd-Frank. The bill Sanders proposed does that. If he thought the secretary of Treasury already had that authority under Dodd-Frank, why would he say they need to be "given" the authority? Sanders wasn't exactly clear, but that is what I think he meant given the context of the discussion and the legislation he introduced.

But that really doesnt hold up well based on the questions and his answers.

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: 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.

The interviewer doesn't talk about his bill. Bernie doesnt directly reference his bill. They are both talking about now and about Dodd-Frank and about the powers of the Treasury and Fed Reserve right now. If he is assuming that the people already have the powers outlined in his bill I find that even more troubling. I mean, that just makes him appear more confused to me than if he was simply ignorant.

And lets be honest, there is no way that his bill or any kind of bill like that is passing. If he is going to break up the banks or at least curb their influence somehow within the first year like his campaign said then he is going to need to use existing powers. He has no realistic plan to do that.

Also, while I agree that the bill Sanders proposed wasn't a serious bill, it isn't unusual for laws to be written in terms of broad objectives and then leave the details of implementation to regulatory agencies. There are good reasons for that.

Like what? What good reasons? Can you provide examples of regulatory bills that were passed that were so bare bones to the point where Mother Jones described his bill as no plan at all? And Dodd-Frank was the size of War and Peace.

 

[El Odio]

On mobile so can't effectively search the thread but has this clip from CNN about this article been posted yet?: https://youtu.be/l3AdBnDZjO4
Basically there very passionate bernfan says fuck the daily news and the media for picking on Sanders and that the NYT piece on this is right.

 

[Barajas_201]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

 

[Wall]

The interviewer doesn't talk about his bill. Bernie doesnt directly reference his bill. They are both talking about now and about Dodd-Frank and about the powers of the Treasury and Fed Reserve right now. If he is assuming that the people already have the powers outlined in his bill I find that even more troubling. I mean, that just makes him appear more confused to me than if he was simply ignorant.

I agree its not clear, but if he thinks the Secretary of Treasury already has the power to do what is being talked about, why would he say they need to be "given" the power? It's the interviewer who keeps switching between asking about the Fed and the Treasury as if they are the same thing. It makes the conversation difficult to follow. And Sanders is correct that it is unclear whether the Fed would have that power:

From the article I quoted:

New York TimesIt makes sense for Mr. Sanders to hedge here about the Fed. The Daily News asks if the Fed has that power “now.” As we have seen, the Fed currently has a lot of power but maybe not all the power it might require to break up the banks without facing serious legal challenges from the financial industry. And Mr. Sanders is also correct that an administration can obtain that power — that is what his bill is for.

I think the exchange you quoted was Sanders arguing against the implication that the government has any power to tell the financial services industry what to do at all. He's pointing out the Fed already has the authority to tell the banks "Now you must do X, Y, Z".

This was an exchange from further down in the interview:

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

Sanders: Burlington.

We are not exactly talking about a high minded set of interlocutors here.

And lets be honest, there is no way that his bill or any kind of bill like that is passing. If he is going to break up the banks or at least curb their influence somehow within the first year like his campaign said then he is going to need to use existing powers. He has no realistic plan to do that.

I agree, but that gets into a different debate: Whether every proposal from a Presidential candidate needs to be "politically realistic". I'm not sure that is the case.

Like what? What good reasons? Can you provide examples of regulatory bills that were passed that were so bare bones to the point where Mother Jones described his bill as no plan at all? And Dodd-Frank was the size of War and Peace.

Like I said, I agree it wasn't a serious bill. My point is that regulatory agencies do require some discretion in order to be able to react to contingencies and account for the need for professional expertise in a particular field. Congress isn't composed of doctors, scientists and engineers, after all.

 

[Zipzo]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

Just caught this. Glad someone spoke out all the things I was thinking...

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

Super weak defense, and a very annoying guy. "No one knows that! You'd have to talk to experts!"

Bernie, on this particular subject should be an expert. That's sort of the point. His answers are unsatisfactory in light of the fact that "breaking up banks" is something he ostensibly knows a lot about. Nobody expects him to be able to recite Dodd-Frank from memory, but he did not display the level of understanding you would expect from him.

Whether this is an issue of his deeper understanding, or if he just is super bad at explaining himself, I don't think you can say for sure based off the interview. The former is obviously worse than the latter, but the latter is an issue if you're going to, you know, be President.

 

[Paskil]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

Yeah, this videos arguments aren't convincing anyone that isn't already a Bernie supporter...

 

[NervousXtian]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

What a smug asshole that guy in the video is.

Instantly starts with "establishment shills" and then becomes biased as fuck. Pot/Kettle.

 

[googleplex]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

I seriously hate how Bernie and his supporters have turned "Establishment" into some goto word to dismiss opposition.

 

[Hexa]

Ahhh it all makes sense now.

Establishment Media Is Now Pretending Bernie Has No Policy Substance

Couldn't make it through much of video due to how much of a condescending prick the guy seems to be, but his first point doesn't make sense. Being a pie in the sky liberal isn't contradictory to not having substantial policy proposals, rather it's a key aspect of being so. He's a pie in the sky liberal because despite having all these things he wants, he has no concrete proposals for getting there or a specific means of enacting them. If he actually had a solid plan for getting everything he wants that makes sense and seems feasible, he wouldn't be a pie in the sky liberal.

 

[legacyzero]

What a smug asshole that guy in the video is.

Instantly starts with "establishment shills" and then becomes biased as fuck. Pot/Kettle.

I've been following Kyle for a while, and he's never been shy about supporting Sanders. However, if you look at his history, he's been critical of Sanders performances as well (Mainly during debates). But the fact of the matter is, he's correct.

-Bernie gets cornered by agressive interview. Is expected to have all kinds of strange shit oddly memorized with statutes and shit like that.
-Media (And some of GAF) tries tries to tar and feather the guy.

I'll take a guy who struggled a bit with a tough and aggressive question, doesn't know all the shit right up front, and then FUCKING OWNS IT and is honest that he doesn't have the answer right there, instead of spinning it like Hillary would.

I'll take that ANY DAY of the week over Hillary's way of doing things. https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI

 

[Justin]

If those were tough "aggressive" questions he has no chance at surviving in the general.

 

[HK-47]

I've been following Kyle for a while, and he's never been shy about supporting Sanders. However, if you look at his history, he's been critical of Sanders performances as well (Mainly during debates). But the fact of the matter is, he's correct.

-Bernie gets cornered by agressive interview. Is expected to have all kinds of strange shit oddly memorized with statutes and shit like that.
-Media (And some of GAF) tries tries to tar and feather the guy.

I'll take a guy who struggled a bit with a tough and aggressive question, doesn't know all the shit right up front, and then FUCKING OWNS IT and is honest that he doesn't have the answer right there, instead of spinning it like Hillary would.

I'll take that ANY DAY of the week over Hillary's way of doing things. https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI

But thats the part of his campaign that I want him to know back to front. Its a centerpiece of his whole run. Its a bad look when running against Clinton, who is a policy wonk and can spit details.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

What stops them from doing this like they did to Microsoft back in the day?

Actually they should be doing this to a lot more than the banks. Too much money has been concentrated into to too few businesses.

 

[RustyNails]

-Bernie gets cornered by agressive interview. Is expected to have all kinds of strange shit oddly memorized with statutes and shit like that.

Pray tell, how is the question "how do you break up big banks, a centerpiece of your message for 9 months" aggressive

 

[B-Dubs]

What stops them from doing this like they did to Microsoft back in the day?

Actually they should be doing this to a lot more than the banks. Too much money has been concentrated into to too few businesses.

The banks aren't monopolies or trusts. Therefore you can't use anti-trust law to break them up.

This is like the 4th time in this thread alone this has been explained.

 

[legacyzero]

Oh hey look. Sanders camp put out a Statement today:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-break-big-fail-banks/

PRESS RELEASE
Sanders: Break up Too-Big-to-Fail Banks
APRIL 6, 2016
Twitter Facebook Email Link
LARAMIE, Wyo. — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ spokesman issued the following statement on Tuesday on how the nation’s biggest banks would be broken up under a Sanders administration:

“Sen. Bernie Sanders and Secretary Clinton have very different points of view on how to reform Wall Street and the largest financial institutions in this country.

“Sen. Sanders believes that it is necessary to break up large financial institutions not only because we need to prevent another Wall Street bailout, but because of the incredible concentration of ownership and power that now rest with a handful of these huge institutions. In fact, the six largest financial institutions in this country now have assets equivalent to more than 56 percent of our nation’s GDP, issue two thirds of the credit cards, and one third of the mortgages.

“Electing Sen. Sanders as president would send a clear message to financial regulators that they need to do everything within their power to break up financial institutions so that they can no longer threaten the financial well-being of the American people.

“Here’s how he will accomplish that.

“Within the first 100 days of his administration, Sen. Sanders will require the secretary of the Treasury Department to establish a “Too-Big-to Fail” list of commercial banks, shadow banks and insurance companies whose failure would pose a catastrophic risk to the United States economy without a taxpayer bailout.

“Within a year, the Sanders administration will work with the Federal Reserve and financial regulators to break these institutions up using the authority of Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

“Sen. Sanders will also fight to enact a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act to clearly separate commercial banking, investment banking and insurance services. Secretary Clinton opposes this extremely important measure.

“President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Glass-Steagall Act into law precisely to prevent Wall Street speculators from causing another Great Depression. And, it worked for more than five decades until Wall Street watered it down under President Reagan and killed it under President Clinton. That is unacceptable and that is why Sen. Sanders will fight to sign the Warren-McCain bill into law.”

 

[Elfforkusu]

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

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.

Also, the article title owns

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Oh hey look. Sanders camp put out a Statement today:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-break-big-fail-banks/

Section 121 is not even a realistic way to do it.

http://qz.com/586884/bernie-sanders-says-he-can-break-up-the-banks-in-a-year-is-that-even-possible/