What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (3 Viewers)

timschochet said:
It didn't. But that's not MY issue. I don't see that as a problem. I think it's fine to regulate banks, and I'm for reasonable restrictions, but I'm not for breaking them up. 
Click to expand...


You don't see a problem in Wall Street being allowed to buy up real estate while the banks force the average American to the sideline?  You don't see a problem with declining home ownership?  You don't see a problem with a lack of new housing for all the illegals you want to let in?  You don't see a problem with a decline in the percentage of purchases being made by first time homebuyers?  You don't see a problem with rents increasing in multiples great than income increases because the big banks and Wall Street have a stranglehold on the the money supply?  You don't see a problem with foreign countries/investors buying up real estate with profits made off the backs of indentured servants at the expense of the American worker?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Just like car insurance. Yep.  But that doesn't get us to the "socialism" that you are trying to scare people with.
Click to expand...
car insurance is aligned with the principle that if you damage someones property thru your negligence then you should pay for it.  Nothing like the requirement of health insurance at all, actually.

 
renesauz said:
Have you forgotten about the Great Depression? Or the widespread disease that occured before the FDA due to faulty/flawed canning? Or the snake oil salesmen touting BS products that cured everything from gout to constipation to depression? Or the thousands of lives cut short in mining and construction jobs that paid piss poor wages while creating abysmal and dangerous working conditions?

A completely free market, in the end, is WORSE than even pure socialism...and Bernie's brand of socialism is far from pure. 
Click to expand...
Snake Oil sales are thriving better than ever these days. Probably the second oldest profession in the post-capitalist era.

 
timschochet said:
No she didn't. She said they were an "enemy". And she was laughing when she said it. It was tongue in cheek. As to great relationships, Hillary has great relationships with some Republicans. So does Bernie. But I believe Hillary is more pragmatic. 
Click to expand...
BULL ####.  She was not laughing.  Quit making #### up.  She was asked who her biggest enemy was in debate #1 and she answered, "republicans."   She was not laughing. It was not tongue in cheek. She was dead serious.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree with the comments about reversing Glass-Steagall, it was a mistake and more than that it was deceptively passed. Practically criminal in retrospect. I have a concern though about the after effects and collateral damage that would be caused by breaking up banks out of the blue though all over again. The industry was in rubble when the restrictions were first put in place and really it was minuscule compared to today, even when it was booming in the 20s. Does anyone have any thoughts or backup for why reimplementing GS would not cause pain or harm to consumers and every day employees on the front end? Thanks.
Click to expand...
What you think of as a bank is actually a company that owns both commercial and investment banks.  In a company like Wells Fargo, the commercial bank is much larger than investment bank.  In Goldman, the reverse is true. 

There are really various ways something like this could be implemented.  It runs the gambit from preventing the commercial banks from engaging in certain activities (like the Volcker Rule) to preventing bank holding companies from owning both commercial and investment banks.

Glass-Steagall changed a lot over the years and it is not clear what people want to bring back exactly.  I've talked to many a person who fondly recall how easy it was to circumvent it in the decade leading to the ultimate repeal.

 
Dread Pirate said:
car insurance is aligned with the principle that if you damage someones property thru your negligence then you should pay for it.  Nothing like the requirement of health insurance at all, actually.
Click to expand...
If you don't have health insurance who do you think pays for you when you show up in the ER? 

 
Dread Pirate said:
car insurance is aligned with the principle that if you damage someones property thru your negligence then you should pay for it.  Nothing like the requirement of health insurance at all, actually.
Click to expand...
Are you daft?  Its other people paying for the uninsured. Its almost exactly the same premise. Other people having to pay for your negligence/ignorance. Be it health or auto (which is often health also).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
Am I wrong to think that questioning Bernie's Democratic party worthiness is yet another short-sighted blunder from Hillary camp? If Trump gets jilted and runs third-party, Bernie could run 3rd party, part-deux, and waltz into the White House (admittedly, my junior high knowledge of the Electoral College may prove me wrong), and since he's not really a Democrat, why wouldn't he?
Click to expand...
I think the bolded is a really interesting question.

Hillary has so many flaws as a candidate and this kind of hamfistedness seems so clumsy and predictable. And yet we know she has the most sophisticated, most elite political consultants on hand. Is she really stumbling into this, is she just that oafish? I don't see Sanders going 3rd party, never have, not only because of the sore loser laws because I don't see him doing harm to his greater causes. And yet what is Hillary doing? This could rebound against her badly. Or it could work. It's odd that Trump's own past lack of party membership sort of played an early role in the GOP race, but a good portion of GOP voters seem to hate their party anyway. I find Sanders' history as an independent attractive, in a way he is indeed the most important Independent candidacy in our history outside perhaps Perot, and maybe a couple others like Teddy R. and Debs. But do Democrats want that? If Hillary shrieks "Unbeliever!" at him how do party voters react? I have no idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getzlaf15 said:
BULL ####.  She was not laughing.  Quit making #### up.  She was asked who her biggest enemy was in debate #1 and she answered, "republicans."   She was not laughing. It was not tongue in cheek. She was dead serious.
Click to expand...
And I find no fault with it, if you think they are doing real harm that is hurting the citizenry. Like with bigotry, voting, wars and so-on.

 
Dread Pirate said:
I think you fail to appreciate the seismic-like shift toward socialism the ACA has created.  
Click to expand...
And I  think you fail to appreciate just how poorly the "free market" has done in the area of health care. Our costs are double and our results at best average.

Even funnier is the fact that it wasn't really a free market for health care BEFORE the ACA. 

Fixing health care (and to me this can only be done with universal coverage) is far and away my biggest topic.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think the bolded is a really interesting question.

Hillary has so many flaws as a candidate and this kind of hamfistedness seems so clumsy and predictable. And yet we know she has the most sophisticated, most elite political consultants on hand. Is she really stumbling into this or is she just that oafish? I don't see Sanders going 3rd party, never have, not only because of the sore loser laws because I don't see him doing harm to his greater causes. And yet what is Hillary doing? This could rebound against her badly. Or it could work. It's odd that Trump's own past lack of party membership sort of played an early role in the GOP race, but a good portion of GOP voters seem to hate their party anyway. I find Sanders' history as an independent attractive, in a way he is indeed the most important Independent candidacy in our history outside perhaps Perot, and maybe a couple others like Teddy R. and Debs. But do Democrats want that? If Hillary shrieks "Unbeliever!" at him how do party voters react? I have no idea.
Click to expand...
I think all you need to do is look at approval ratings of both parties in congress to get a feel for that.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
And I find no fault with it, if you think they are doing real harm that is hurting the citizenry. Like with bigotry, voting, wars and so-on.
Click to expand...
True. And again, she should own it, but I think Tim is echoing her own line on it. I also think she meant the GOP as enemies personally, not on an ideology level, but I think she too has said it was just jocularity.

 
renesauz said:
And I  think you fail to appreciate just how poorly the "free market" has done in the area of health care. Our costs are double and our results at best average.

Even funnier is the fact that it wasn't really a free market for health care BEFORE the ACA. 

Fixing health care (and to me this can only be done with universal coverage) is far and away my biggest topic.
Click to expand...
What's even funnier is that you point out the "funny" thing (in bold) yet attempt to put the blame of the failure on the free market (your first sentence).  But I'm the one that's tone deaf? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
Are you daft?  Its other people paying for the uninsured. Its almost exactly the same premise. Other people having to pay for your negligence/ignorance. Be it health or auto (which is often health also).
Click to expand...


It isn't about simple negligence...suing someone for negligence with an auto, or for unpaid medical bills, is useless if the person being sued has no money to pay. It makes far more sense to require some sort of insurance as a condition for driving at all. Finding some way to cover every citizen (medically) makes more sense than passing his costs of treatment along to others (via higher premiums...which we do now!) and then placing a collection on him that destroys his credit when the treatment isn't always even optional! 

 
Dread Pirate said:
What's even funnier is that you point out the "funny" thing (in bold) yet attempt to put the blame of the failure on the free market (your first sentence).  But I'm the one that's tone deaf? 
Click to expand...
The free market can not work with health care, because health care is not optional. It isn't a luxury item. Much like the electricity sent to your home or the water in your city, without significant oversight it can not and will not be affordable. It's already unaffordable to most...even middle class citizens with "decent" coverage can end up in bankruptcy with an accident due to medical bills alone. Our system was already broken...the ACA didn't fix it.

 
Getzlaf15 said:
BULL ####.  She was not laughing.  Quit making #### up.  She was asked who her biggest enemy was in debate #1 and she answered, "republicans."   She was not laughing. It was not tongue in cheek. She was dead serious.
Click to expand...
No she wasn't asked that. She was asked the enemy she was most proud of and she gave a laundry list and after the NRA, the Health Insurance Companies, the Drug Companies, the Iranians, she then said "Probably the Republicans."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t48MyL5QdAc

It was a "Gotcha" silly question and her response was obviously joking and she was laughing (along with the audience)

Lighten up Francis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
Am I wrong to think that questioning Bernie's Democratic party worthiness is yet another short-sighted blunder from Hillary camp? If Trump gets jilted and runs third-party, Bernie could run 3rd party, part-deux, and waltz into the White House (admittedly, my junior high knowledge of the Electoral College may prove me wrong), and since he's not really a Democrat, why wouldn't he?
Click to expand...
Sanders running 3rd party would be the best thing to come out of this campaign season IMO, but it won't happen.  We DESPERATELY need a viable 3rd party (if not more).

 
Gr00vus said:
I hope not.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it.  worst case I imagine it's taken out of context or is not the full quote.

ETA - but I'm willing to be wrong.  I just hope Bernie sticks to the issues.  Let Hillary do this kind of politics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
Watch the video - like I said, it's not the full quote. 

:popcorn:   this is going to get good
Click to expand...
Cross posted from the Hillary thread:

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-not

[...]

Rachel Maddow came back and tried to figure out why Bernie said what he did.

"What we think this is about is, what we think he's referencing there, Secretary Clinton saying today in an interview that Bernie Sanders has not done his homework on some issues that have come up in the campaign, in a sort of rough interview that he had with the editorial board of the NY Daily News in the last few days. Sanders is responding to that characterization tonight by saying, 'Hillary Clinton is not qualified to serve as president of the United States."

I agree with Rachel Maddow. Clinton was on Morning Joe earlier today, and he kept pressuring her to say that Bernie wasn't qualified to be president, which she didn't.

Scarborough: We've been talking about Bernie Sanders' New York Daily News interview. And I want to start with that. And ask you in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be President of the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been ‘break up the banks,’ and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were, and you know, that means you can’t really help people if you don’t know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do.”

Scarborough: So is he, is he qualified? ...I know there are a lot of examples where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions and so the question, and I’m serious, if you weren’t running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you say, ‘This guy is ready to be president of the United States’?”

Clinton: Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. And really what that goes to is for voters to ask themselves, Can he deliver what he is talking about, can he really help people, can he help our economy, can he keep our country strong?

She never said Bernie wasn't qualified to be president even though Scarborough was begging for it. Did she play rough? Absolutely. [...]

 
Gr00vus said:
Disappointing and probably damaging for Bernie.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the video?  He's just hammering the same points the always has - he does tie them more directly to Hillary but it's not that surprising.  Some people have been asking him to attack her more directly, well they are getting their wish. 

 
BassNBrew said:
Wrong.  Watch the video.

Way to go Bernie!!!!
Click to expand...
I just watched the video, the quote as posted in Twitter - by MSNBC - is truncated, Bernie qualified his remarks. There's also further clarification on what Hillary did or did not say earlier, however she also did not concede that yes Bernie is qualified, she could have been sportsmanlike in that as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I just watched the video, the quote as posted in Twitter - by MSNBC - is truncated, Bernie qualified his remarks. There's also further clarification on what Hillary did or did not say earlier, however she also did not concede that yes Bernie is qualified, she could have been sportsmanlike in that as well.
Click to expand...
Like I said, Twitter sucks.

 
Her campaign said specifically they were going to disqualify him. That means they are saying he is not qualified. Pretty straight forward.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
What's the full quote? Can't watch the video right now.
Click to expand...
Basically said you aren't qualified to be president if you voted for the Iraq War and if you voted for the Panama Trade Agreeement and if you take millions from SuperPacs.  It's the same stuff he's been campaigning on from day 1, just that he specficially directed them towards Hillary.  And Hillary and her camp have been claiming that he was tying her to those things without saying it.  Well, now he's said - let her refute it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
Basically said you aren't qualified to be president if you voted for the Iraq War and if you voted for the Panama Trade Agreeement and if you take millions from SuperPacs.  It's the same stuff he's been campaigning on from day 1, just that he specficially directed them towards Hillary.  And Hillary and her camp have been claiming that he was tying her to those things without saying, well, now he's said - let her refute it.
Click to expand...
His speech was the PERFECT rebuttal. Reminiscent of how Obama handled her in 08. Remember her point then was Obama didn't have the gravitas to be president. He hit back on her judgment. Bernie is doing the same but he's also layering on her debt to special interests.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim's not going to like this at all - this is what he's saying Bernie shouldn't do because it will help the Republicans.  May help her - let her figure out how to spin her answers now while some people aren't paying attention.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
539
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
466
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top