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. (5 Viewers)

OK so I finally read the Daily News transcript. First off the subway thing was stupid. The gun thing, I actually agree with him on (I think I wrote I disagreed yesterday, that was incorrect) but it's not a major issue to me one way or another. On Israel he exaggerated the number of Palestinians killed; a little troubling but again not that big a deal; I know where he stands on that issue. But as for his main issues...

It wasn't good. He didn't seem to know how he would go about breaking up the big banks. He suggested that Dodds-Frank might give the federal government the mechanism to do so, but was unsure. He wasn't sure what the consequences would be or how to go about it. He also wasn't sure of how to go about prosecuting the bank executives for 2008, which he's been very critical of Obama for NOT doing. He was directly asked on what authority the Justice Department would take such an action, and what they would be charged with, and he couldn't answer.

I'm pretty sure there ARE answers to these questions. But Bernie didn't have them at his fingertips, and he probably should since they represent the core of his campaign. I don't know how many people are actually going to read this article and whether or not it will affect his campaign at all. But I was troubled. He sounded, I'm afraid, a little like Trump. A deer caught in the headlights. That was my impression. 
There was a court decision under seal at the time of this interview, that no one could access, that decided not to allow that power against Metlife under Dodd-Frank.  No one could know the implications of that yet - the meeting between counsel and the court to decide whether it got unsealed was yesterday.  Turns out the decision shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the application of Dodd-Frank to banks, but neither the interviewer nor Sanders could know that at the time.

As for comparing him to Trump, you're over the rainbow.  I don't think anyone can publicly claim a blanket statute whereby an entire industry in the financial collapse should be charged.  There are a number of possibilities, and they'd be individualized.

 
OK so I finally read the Daily News transcript. First off the subway thing was stupid. The gun thing, I actually agree with him on (I think I wrote I disagreed yesterday, that was incorrect) but it's not a major issue to me one way or another. On Israel he exaggerated the number of Palestinians killed; a little troubling but again not that big a deal; I know where he stands on that issue. But as for his main issues...

It wasn't good. He didn't seem to know how he would go about breaking up the big banks. He suggested that Dodds-Frank might give the federal government the mechanism to do so, but was unsure. He wasn't sure what the consequences would be or how to go about it. He also wasn't sure of how to go about prosecuting the bank executives for 2008, which he's been very critical of Obama for NOT doing. He was directly asked on what authority the Justice Department would take such an action, and what they would be charged with, and he couldn't answer.

I'm pretty sure there ARE answers to these questions. But Bernie didn't have them at his fingertips, and he probably should since they represent the core of his campaign. I don't know how many people are actually going to read this article and whether or not it will affect his campaign at all. But I was troubled. He sounded, I'm afraid, a little like Trump. A deer caught in the headlights. That was my impression. 
Have you read the NYT piece saying his interview and answers were fine? 

 
Have you read the NYT piece saying his interview and answers were fine? 
I have now, thanks to Slapdash posting it. I also just read the article that VandyMan linked.

After every Donald Trump interview in which he sounded confused, there has appeared a conservative "expert" column trying to justify and explain Trump's confusion as representative of some sort of grander idea. These two pieces reminded me a bit of that. I'm glad they explained things, but it doesn't change the fact that my personal impression reading that article is that Bernie sounded confused and unsure.

And I am not the only person who had that impression. Slapdash can attempt to dismiss it all as "Clinton's propaganda" but there's plenty of independent journalists who felt and wrote the same thing, and they're not shills for Hillary Clinton. I could link some of them, but why bother? In the end I can only offer my own opinion. 

 
This is complete horse####.  You have clearly stated time and time again that you have no understanding of these issues.  People that actually do have the opinion that:  Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks
Also this:  Let’s Dispel Once and for All With This Fiction That Sanders Doesn’t Know How to Break Up Banks
We shouldn't be shocked that Tim is eating up Clinton's propaganda here
Tim will come around, eventually.  Just need to bring him along bit by bit instead of poking him in the eye.

 
I have now, thanks to Slapdash posting it. I also just read the article that VandyMan linked.

After every Donald Trump interview in which he sounded confused, there has appeared a conservative "expert" column trying to justify and explain Trump's confusion as representative of some sort of grander idea. These two pieces reminded me a bit of that. I'm glad they explained things, but it doesn't change the fact that my personal impression reading that article is that Bernie sounded confused and unsure.

And I am not the only person who had that impression. Slapdash can attempt to dismiss it all as "Clinton's propaganda" but there's plenty of independent journalists who felt and wrote the same thing, and they're not shills for Hillary Clinton. I could link some of them, but why bother? In the end I can only offer my own opinion. 
That's not what's happening here.  Watch the CNN video linked above.  It's bordering on willful ignorance to believe that Sanders doesn't know about this issue.

 
Tim will come around, eventually.  Just need to bring him along bit by bit instead of poking him in the eye.
If you mean that I will come around to believing in breaking up the big banks, the answer is: possibly. As Slapdash correctly points out, I don't understand enough about this issue to see what all of the ramifications would be. I'm learning. 

If you mean I will come around to believing that Bernie Sanders wasn't confused and unsure about his answers in that interview, I'm afraid not. I really think he was. 

 
That's not what's happening here.  Watch the CNN video linked above.  It's bordering on willful ignorance to believe that Sanders doesn't know about this issue.
That's correct.  The piece I linked was written by someone who disagrees with Sanders plan, but thinks it's stupid to pretend Sanders doesn't understand or have a plan.

 
That's not what's happening here.  Watch the CNN video linked above.  It's bordering on willful ignorance to believe that Sanders doesn't know about this issue.
I didn't say that either. I don't believe it. I think that for whatever reason he was caught off guard on some of the specific questions and didn't have the best responses at the time. 

 
I have now, thanks to Slapdash posting it. I also just read the article that VandyMan linked.

After every Donald Trump interview in which he sounded confused, there has appeared a conservative "expert" column trying to justify and explain Trump's confusion as representative of some sort of grander idea. These two pieces reminded me a bit of that. I'm glad they explained things, but it doesn't change the fact that my personal impression reading that article is that Bernie sounded confused and unsure.

And I am not the only person who had that impression. Slapdash can attempt to dismiss it all as "Clinton's propaganda" but there's plenty of independent journalists who felt and wrote the same thing, and they're not shills for Hillary Clinton. I could link some of them, but why bother? In the end I can only offer my own opinion. 
There's nothing wrong with being confused on this. It's a confusing topic and he could have been more eloquent in his response. 

Are you dismissing the NYT as the equivalent of a conservative blogger Trump apologist? 

At the end of the day it's a really complex matter that isn't easy to understand. I don't see how you can give a real quick and easy answer to something like that.

Just because someone was confused doesn't mean they're right. It just means they're confused. Feel free to link to all the journalists you want who didn't understand things. 

 
Anyhow it's a little disturbing to me that so many of you guys are so eager to defend Bernie on every little issue. It's cultish, and reminds me way too much of the Trumpsters. I have much greater respect for most of you than I do for them. You don't need to be so defensive all the time. 

 
If you mean that I will come around to believing in breaking up the big banks, the answer is: possibly. As Slapdash correctly points out, I don't understand enough about this issue to see what all of the ramifications would be. I'm learning. 

If you mean I will come around to believing that Bernie Sanders wasn't confused and unsure about his answers in that interview, I'm afraid not. I really think he was. 
How can you evaluate whether what Bernie said made sense when you don't know anything about the underlying issue at all?

 
Anyhow it's a little disturbing to me that so many of you guys are so eager to defend Bernie on every little issue. It's cultish, and reminds me way too much of the Trumpsters. I have much greater respect for most of you than I do for them. You don't need to be so defensive all the time. 
The truth, Tim, is that some of us agree with him on the issues you're bringing up.  It's why his platform has so much traction, despite likely not having thought he had any chance at the nomination when he declared.  Sanders fits in a lane no one knew existed, and he fits in it very, very well.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in most cases, I'm not defending Sanders' position on an issue.  I'm defending mine.

 
Anyhow it's a little disturbing to me that so many of you guys are so eager to defend Bernie on every little issue. It's cultish, and reminds me way too much of the Trumpsters. I have much greater respect for most of you than I do for them. You don't need to be so defensive all the time. 
One page back Bernie supporters disagree about whether he should take the offensive in attacking Hillary.  And iirc we disagreed on whether Sanders should support/oppose the Sandy Hook people's lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.  If there's a cult, it is poorly formed.  At least we agree on 92.8% of the issues.   :P

 
How can you evaluate whether what Bernie said made sense when you don't know anything about the underlying issue at all?
:lmao:  Never fails with you. 

I acknowledged I don't know ENOUGH about these issues. That's not the same as knowing nothing.

Besides, I think I can read an interview and evaluate whether or not somebody sounds confused. 

 
Scott Walker appointee Rebecca Bradley defeated challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg in a race for a crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court seat.

15% of Bernie voters opted not to vote on this judicial race, compared to 4% of Clinton voters.
Not surprising at all, but disappointing nonetheless. 

 
:lmao:  Never fails with you. 

I acknowledged I don't know ENOUGH about these issues. That's not the same as knowing nothing.

Besides, I think I can read an interview and evaluate whether or not somebody sounds confused. 
Doubtful, but it is clear you can read an interview and know what opinion the media wants you to have

 
Bernie Sanders supporters are cultish. This coming for her royal majesty's number 1 applogist. Server issue, Iraq vote, in the pocket of every moneyed interest. None of it matters. She's a national treasure. 

 
Anyhow it's a little disturbing to me that so many of you guys are so eager to defend Bernie on every little issue. It's cultish, and reminds me way too much of the Trumpsters. I have much greater respect for most of you than I do for them. You don't need to be so defensive all the time. 
This line of attack is absurd and insulting. Plenty of us have disagreed with aspects of his policy goals. We're defending against dumb and misleading attacks from the Clinton home base. There just happen to be a lot of those so we're constantly having to defend. Which is why it's nice to see Bernie finally hit back. 

ETA auto-correct 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyhow it's a little disturbing to me that so many of you guys are so eager to defend Bernie on every little issue. It's cultish, and reminds me way too much of the Trumpsters. I have much greater respect for most of you than I do for them. You don't need to be so defensive all the time. 
This line of attack is absurd and insulting. Plenty of us have disappeared with aspects of his policy goals. We're defending against dumb and misleading attacks from the Clinton home base. There just happen to be a lot of those so we're constantly having to defend. Which is why it's nice to see Bernie finally hit back. 
It'd be a lot easier to discuss the actual issues without the Trump and Hilary zombies coming in here and throwing poop

 
 


Clinton Portrays Herself as a Pro-Gun Churchgoer


April 12, 2008

VALPARAISO, Ind. – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to co-opt Mr. Obama’s message of hope and optimism, beginning a speech in Valparaiso, Ind., by talking about how positive and “fundamentally optimistic” Americans are.

“We don’t get bogged down and looking back – we’re always looking forward,” she said, as heavy applause nearly drowned out her words. “Whatever obstacle we see, we get over it. Whatever challenge we have, we meet it. We’re the problem-solvers, we’re the innovators, we’re the people who make the better future.”

For the third time since Mr. Obama’s remarks were made public Friday night, Mrs. Clinton criticized him at length, saying his comments seemed “kind of elitist and out of touch.”

“I disagree with Senator Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration,” she said.

She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/?_r=3

 
If you mean that I will come around to believing in breaking up the big banks, the answer is: possibly. As Slapdash correctly points out, I don't understand enough about this issue to see what all of the ramifications would be. I'm learning. 

If you mean I will come around to believing that Bernie Sanders wasn't confused and unsure about his answers in that interview, I'm afraid not. I really think he was. 
How can you possibly be confused about this issue and not understand it but ALSO be confident Bernie didn't understand what he was talking about? 

 
We should keep a list of things Tim admits to not understanding, hasn't yet had an opportunity to read/watch and will 'do it later' but has commented on anyhow. 

Panama papers

Bernie bank interview

 
Ok I have an idea: Hillary and Bernie agree to a winner take all prop bet for all of New York's delegates. First, buy some MTA cards for Hillary and Bernie (well you know since they can't get them for themselves). Then: first one to get from Battery Park to Washington Heights without an MTA map and without taking the express wins.

 
How can you possibly be confused about this issue and not understand it but ALSO be confident Bernie didn't understand what he was talking about? 
1. What I'm unsure about is whether or not breaking up the banks would be a good idea. I want to know more about the ramifications, and the alternatives. I'm trying to learn.

2. I'm less unsure about prosecuting bankers for what happened in 2008. On that, I am generally opposed to Bernie's position (unless there is a specific crime somebody committed which is already on the books.)

3. In the part that troubled me, Bernie was not asked why the banks should be broken up, or why the bankers should be prosecuted, he was asked how. He was asked about the mechanics, and he sounded confused and unsure in his response. If I watched an airline pilot stare nervously at his control panel, start to push one button, hesitate, then start to push another, that would make me nervous. I wouldn't need to know how the control panel operated myself to be concerned that the pilot didn't know what he was doing. 

 
I'm sad you've gone back on your claim that you weren't responding to my posts.  But I never expected you to pass up an opportunity to troll.
How about you stop responding to my posts, and I'll stop responding to yours?

Otherwise, I think I'm going to disregard a guy who constantly uses words to describe me like "pathetic", "ignorant", "moronic" etc, when he calls me a troll. 

 
I hate to agree with Tim, but I believe he's saying that Bernie sounded like he didn't really know what he was talking about, which is different than saying he doesn't know what he is talking about.  It isn't some huuuuuuuuuuge game-changer or anything, but it wasn't a good answer/interview, especially considering it is one of his core issues.

Hopefully he can fine tune his delivery and do better next time, but this insistence on defending every single thing that your candidate says or does isn't a good look.

 
I'm stunned you would make that pilot analogy as Iirc you've always (correctly) hated the managing our national budget like it's a household budget. 

They're both horrendous and embarrassing of the poster. 

 
Ok I have an idea: Hillary and Bernie agree to a winner take all prop bet for all of New York's delegates. First, buy some MTA cards for Hillary and Bernie (well you know since they can't get them for themselves). Then: first one to get from Battery Park to Washington Heights without an MTA map and without taking the express wins.
The recap would sound like Respiration by Talib Kwali, but just drone on for at least a half an hour.

 
Ok I have an idea: Hillary and Bernie agree to a winner take all prop bet for all of New York's delegates. First, buy some MTA cards for Hillary and Bernie (well you know since they can't get them for themselves). Then: first one to get from Battery Park to Washington Heights without an MTA map and without taking the express wins.
I love this idea. But why can't they take the express? Seems like that would be a good variable to introduce.

I would also support letting them use maps but making them start in Bushwick or something.  Maybe a couple blocks from a stop. That would really hike up the entertainment value.  Maybe let Trump play, just for fun?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top