Bernie's In

@maporsche,

You sound like a 19th Century robber baron industrialist.

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You sound like a 19th Century robber baron industrialist.

You're right Izzy. I'm sure the average Chinese citizen wishes none of those jobs were there.

I want them to be paid more money too, but the way you do that is NOT by imposing tariffs and restricting sales of goods in an attempt to keep certain jobs in America.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I should add that what I'd want to see included in trade agreements in regards to workers is that workers overseas are treated fairly, humanely, and make a decent living (in relation to the alternatives).

I would NOT want to see any protections meant to protect jobs in America.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Ten worst countries for child labor.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/world/child-labor-index-2014/

0 Replies

I came late to this thread - I was hoping to find some info on the latest primaries (thanks Ed) - it took me a little while to realise (after being called 'partisan') that this is largely a forum for shrill Clinton supporters to attack the credibility and intelligence of Sanders supporters (and interested outsiders).

America is usually interesting - if often incomprehensible.

Anyway I'm not participating any more (not that I really have Wink

) - but I did want to share a factoid oft-used by Australia's former ambassador to the USA:

"I used to dine out in Washington, D.C., on a piece of Pew Research done for the 2008 presidential election. The question was asked around the globe whether the respondent was “interested in the US presidential election”. In the US 83% surveyed revealed themselves so focused. The Australian response was 84%."

Source

3 Replies

@hingehead,

What is more interesting is the number of voters in all elections.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Stick around, Hinge, if you can stand it. Thread can use some sanity.

0 Replies

@Lash,

I've followed politics for a hell of a lot longer than you have. I have also followed the Democratic party nominating processes for at least 5 times longer than you have.

Bernie's supporters aren't sweating delegates because they don't have a clue about the rules or the number of delegates required. They are naive and not really that committed to the process. In my caucus in Mn, the vote was 150- 50 for Bernie but the people willing to be delegates to the next convention was split about 50-50. In the next convention, many of those Bernie delegates never showed up. That means in a state that caucused over 60% for Bernie over 60% of delegates to their state convention will end up being Hillary supporters. They will elect delegates to the national convention bound a certain way in the first ballot but they will not be willing to vote to change rules to let Bernie steal something he hasn't won on the national level.

Sorry, but there will not be shifts or sub rules to circumvent the delegate count required to win the nomination. In the Democratic party the only way those changes can be made are by a vote on the convention floor by the delegates. Hillary will have the delegates to win on the first ballot. Why would her delegates vote to change the rules. Unless Bernie decides to be a complete jerk he will release all his delegates to vote for Hillary before the vote happens on the floor.

1 Reply

Quote:

Did Bernie Sanders Botch An Interview With The Daily News? It’s Not That Simple.

The interview exposes as much about the media as it does about Bernie Sanders.

 16 hours ago | Updated 6 hours ago
Ryan Grim Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post

A notion is rapidly crystallizing among the national media that Bernie Sanders majorly bungled an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News. His rival, Hillary Clinton, has even sent a transcript of the interview to supporters as part of a fundraising push. A close look at that transcript, though, suggests the media may be getting worked up over nothing.

In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

This is true, as economist Dean Baker, Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. ....

Much more:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

So are you saying he did not say these words in response to questions asked?

Quote:

"I don't know."
"It's something I have not studied."
"I haven’t thought about it a whole lot."

Bernie struggles to explain his wall street plan

TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016

3 Replies

@parados,

Good god, you're 220 years old.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

You're celebrating a transition from extreme to grinding poverty for the majority of workers so that a tiny few can get incredibly wealthy. A lot of whom are currently smuggling funds out of China.

A few tariff to ensure this money goes on safer, better paid working conditions, would go a long way to get out of poverty altogether.

0 Replies

Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will face off April 14 in the borough of kings and churches.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Good god, you're 220 years old.

And you were never a conservative supporting GWBush.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Did you read what Olivier said?

1 Reply

@snood,

I have finally got my answer about how Sanders will get all the stuff he is promising directly from Sanders. He dosent have the slightest idea. Just what we need as president. Another Bush.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Yes. The point is that he was unprepared for answering questions he should have known since he has been campaigning on these issues since the start of his campaign. He didn't know if there is a stature or a law against the actions wall street or the banks committed and he has been asking why none of them have been indicted all this time. At one point he said, "well, I believe it is."

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Daily News: Okay. Staying with Wall Street, you've pointed out, that "not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy." Why was that? Why did that happen? Why was there no prosecution?

Sanders: I would suspect that the answer that some would give you is that while what they did was horrific, and greedy and had a huge impact on our economy, that some suggest that...that those activities were not illegal. I disagree. And I think an aggressive attorney general would have found illegal activity.

Daily News: So do you think that President Obama's Justice Department essentially was either in the tank or not as...

Sanders: No, I wouldn’t say they were in the tank. I'm saying, a Sanders administration would have a much more aggressive attorney general looking at all of the legal implications. All I can tell you is that if you have Goldman Sachs paying a settlement fee of $5 billion, other banks paying a larger fee, I think most Americans think, "Well, why do they pay $5 billion?" Not because they're heck of a nice guys who want to pay $5 billion. Something was wrong there. And if something was wrong, I think they were illegal activities.

Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?

Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Speaking as we were if there were any Hillary folk dumping on Sanders, Rabel is the key guy for that, and particularly repetitive at it.

People keep asking for anti Sanders blasts. Don't they read Rabel? Guy has a thumb to use to disagree with people, which is tacky in the first place. I consider thumbs down to be for abuse of the site in some way, not for an argument I disagree with.

0 Replies

I understand not reading something, but this lays it out fairly clearly - from the post I asked about:

"Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

This is true, as economist Dean Baker, Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. .... "

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Neither did Sanders since he did not correct him, nor did he have any idea how he would indict them though he talks like it would have been possible if people just aggressively went after it. In other words, he had no idea if it was illegal or not nor could he name a specific law in which they broke, he just believes it is.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know