-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie can win in 2016
- Thread starter Dark_AnNiaLatOr
- Start date
- Status
your link actually says:
and has various charts proving it.
In addition, your initial assertion is part of a bigger statement that says otherwise:
all ripped right from your source.
Oh man, I hope he doesn't win the nom. I'll have a horrible time deciding who to vote for. I'm a liberal, but I strongly dislike his economic policies (politicizing the Fed, which ruins its abilities to respond quickly to financial crises, putting the average Joe on the Fed as opposed to people who actually know economics, instating a 0.5% FTT, which will decimate retirement accounts by raising mutual fund expense ratios, as well as lower liquidity while raising volatility, paying for his 1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan by somehow making corporations pay taxes from tax havens that I'd imagine the government is already trying to get, etc). Plus, I doubt if he can get much through Congress in the state that it is. Obamacare had a hell of a time making its way through, and it ended being pretty neutered. Not to mention his lack of experience with foreign policy.
I think he's sparking a good conversation about issues such as income inequality, healthcare, socialism etc but I'm doubtful about his presidential abilities. Then again, none of the main candidates really appeal to me that much either.
I think he's sparking a good conversation about issues such as income inequality, healthcare, socialism etc but I'm doubtful about his presidential abilities. Then again, none of the main candidates really appeal to me that much either.
He already did and will continue to do so, but trolls seem to be out in droves lately, like yourself.
Luckily, there are more people who see reason than those who cover their ears
If you go down far enough, it becomes a wreck, but its very unfortunate
When it became clear money was easier to follow, and so began the country's shift to the right, culminating with people, even democrats who claim to be above the GOP morally, ceding their country to moneyed interests while defending it to hell.
The GOP aren't the only ones who put their hands in their ears.
I can't imagine a smaller "world" than one comprised mainly of the US and the UK.
So..how can you not like any of the candidates, yet somehow have a hard time deciding who to vote for if he wins? Were you planning on voting for Trump instead in that event? That's insanity and kind of throws your viewpoints out of the window with your claims of being a liberal.
And then there's your defense of the FED, which basically made it acceptable to infuse the banks with unlimited sums of money with no real restrictions after the crash to even determine how much they were taking and under any kind of conditions to safeguard the people's money. DoddFrank is about the only thing that came out of it, and that's just a piece of paper at this point.
"Putting averages joes" on the fed is also different from putting former bankers closely associated with hedge funders in the FED as well, which happens all too often.
And in addition to that, making the claim that the government is "trying to get at" tax safehavens when most corps knowingly pay zero anyway, even without gaming the system, and there having been no talk of 'getting at' these tax havens or ending the sort of speculatory nonsense the shadow banks participate in for the 8 years since the crash happened is also a pretty bad interpretation of the situation.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I asked about this in another thread with regards to this Vox Interview with Timothy Geithner; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRP2Vw9ix-s
He claims a lot of the same things you are- That putting all the financial institutions under one banner is what kept America from burning to the ground. The response from the posters I got back then, was that it is bull and the only one who really benefits from it are wall streeters who take care of the financial loops.
Bernie has said in some of his interviews that he intends Wall Street to pay their share and close some of the off shoring money. But closing financial loop holes seems unrealistic for any candidates, if it is indeed true, that there are being made changes to the American tax code every single day.
Ron Paul wanted to eliminate the fed, and he seemed to have ideas that big government was bad. Bernie doesn't seem opposed to financial institutions, he seems to think that the current unification of the fed is a breeding ground for political corruption and misconduct.
I might be mistaken, but this thing in its entirety. isn't it a child of one of Clintons policies from way back in the early 90s?
I'm not sure why this video was brought up. This happened months ago and was heavily discussed on gaf and reddit. In the end, it helped Bernie and his campaign as well as the other democratic candidates.
I think I'll most likely sit out of this election is what I meant. Before I would have voted for Hillary, but Sanders's influence (as in, her desire to pull Sanders supporters) has pulled her more to the left as opposed to her more moderate positions before.
I think keeping the Fed out of politics is important as it allows it to respond quickly to financial crises due to its abilities to quickly increase/decrease the money supply and act as a lender of last resort. For example, during the recession, the Fed immediately lowered interest rates/increased the money supply to stimulate the economy and prevent a deflationary spiral, and acted as a lender of last resort to banks. If they hadn't acted immediately, we would be in a depression. However, what caused the Great Depression was actually due in large part to the Fed's inaction due in large part to political infighting. The Fed was also slow to act in the 1970s inflation crisis due to political pressure.
Re: Putting Average Joes, It is different, but it is what Bernie is advocating in his NYT article. I believe that there is problematic elections to the Fed happening now, but I also strongly believe that we need people with an economic education and background on the Fed.
Also yeah I'll probably have to read more about shadow banking. I also think it's unrealistic given his estimates because even if he somehow manages to get the tax money, it will take 10 years to pay off the infrastructure plan. But yeah, you got me there.
Then what's the point of going after hard issues, if the issue is, its too difficult? What isn't difficult? Where does that end up, the non difficult path?
Yes. Along with Alan Greenspan started a whole bunch of this nonsense. Clinton deregulated a lot of the industry that kept these things from happening, the collusion between the money sector and the government.
Ron Paul and Bernie came together to audit the FED. Under different reasoning but their goal was the same. Paul wanted to show the FED as corrupt and unsuitable to handle the people's money as a government institution, a reason to shut it down, and Bernie to gain transparency of the FED in order to reform it.
DataStream
Member
He will have a much harder time beating Hildawg for the nomination than whatever steaming pile of hatepoop comes from the GOP
He brought it back up to try and bait Bernie supporters into saying something racist or something that could be construed as racist. Then we go into the "see, Bernie supporters are awful" shit all over again.
Neuromancer
Member
Paul Kirk just endorsed Bernie.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-14/sanders-endorsed-by-former-dnc-chairman-kirk
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-14/sanders-endorsed-by-former-dnc-chairman-kirk
Dixon's Jet
Banned
http://www.bustle.com/articles/1358...he-gop-debate-than-most-of-the-republicans-on
Bernie Sanders gets a lot of attention from viewers watching the Republican debates.
Bernie Sanders gets a lot of attention from viewers watching the Republican debates.
Oh you know which hatepoop pile it's gonna be.
VendettaRed07
Member
It had more to do with the fact that despite Nixon, Ford's pardon, all the corruption during the Reagan administration, etc. the democrats lost 5/6 presidential elections. Losing to Papa Bush in 88 was the tipping point, they had to change strategy. Dems were terrible almost as terrible at reading public consensus on people's opinions and taking winning stances on issues as republicans are now.
For example, Dukakis should have supported the death penalty in 88. The fact that he didn't destroyed him. Even if he disagreed with it the public at the time wasn't ready to accept that stance on that issue
The country hasn't moved to the right as a result of the slow moving, sympathetic tactic either, it's moving to the left. Maybe republicans are but they are damaging themselves nationally in the process.
Isn't Don Kirk one of those dudes who was an insurance lobbyist at one point? Dude's got some stones or had a real change of heart somewhere.
...speaking of insurance lobbyists, apparently Howard Dean is now a member of Dentos, which is a private health insurance lobby firm. Know who else is apart of this lobby firm? Newt Gingrich is as well.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/14/howard-dean-lobbyist/
And just in time to have completely renounced his previous support of single payer and back Hillary.
This system man....this is the problem that people seem to not be understanding.
When i say voting for Hillary is wrong, its because its a vote against your own interests.
Its like the Republicans voting for the GOP perpetually driving themselves into a corner.
Its a vote directly into the hands of that collusion of special interests that dominate almost every aspect of this country in general. Your not moving the meter anywhere in a positive direction as long as these forces have that power.
Voting for any of these corporate guys is like sawing off your own fingers while under anesthetic. You don't feel it immediately, but your really bleeding out, and eventually its gonna really kill you.
...speaking of insurance lobbyists, apparently Howard Dean is now a member of Dentos, which is a private health insurance lobby firm. Know who else is apart of this lobby firm? Newt Gingrich is as well.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/14/howard-dean-lobbyist/
And just in time to have completely renounced his previous support of single payer and back Hillary.
This system man....this is the problem that people seem to not be understanding.
When i say voting for Hillary is wrong, its because its a vote against your own interests.
Its like the Republicans voting for the GOP perpetually driving themselves into a corner.
Its a vote directly into the hands of that collusion of special interests that dominate almost every aspect of this country in general. Your not moving the meter anywhere in a positive direction as long as these forces have that power.
Voting for any of these corporate guys is like sawing off your own fingers while under anesthetic. You don't feel it immediately, but your really bleeding out, and eventually its gonna really kill you.
TheBritishBear
Banned
Honestly, the fact that a few months ago, Hillary was leading by a large amount in the polls that Bernie wasn't even a consideration, to losing in both polls in Iowa and New Hampshire and only have something like 4% difference in the national polls, should say that Bernie does have a real chance of contesting the nominations.
Of course it's polls, but you know, it's not like Bernie is unelectable like Ron Paul was.
Of course it's polls, but you know, it's not like Bernie is unelectable like Ron Paul was.
eBay Huckster
Member
exactly one national poll has shown a margin as small as 4% and 4 of the last 5 have margins of 15% or more (which is incidentally where the aggregate is)
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
I hope he doesn't because I have a $300 parlay bet that pays out $7000 if Hilary wins. Hilary winning would be the final required condition though so...
How does it pay out so much more than the bet itself, and for the frontrunner no less?
Sign
Member
It is hard to believe that the Democratic Party once had F.D.R. front and center saying what was essentially, "Come at me, comrade" to all the business interests in this country - was straight up calling for an economic bill of rights before he died! Disappointment doesn't even begin to describe this party now.
And, what sucks is it will probably only get worse. I wouldn't be surprised to see Republicans bankrolled for sometime to serve only as boogeymen to corral the increasingly overwhelming democratic vote into the bought and paid for candidate on the Democratic side that absolutely must be chosen because it is just too risky to vote for anyone else. This election it is the Supreme Court, next election it will be cleaning up the mess Hilary (Military Industrial Complex) creates by trying to topple Assad, etc. All the while, corporate interests continue to bleed the American public dry -another bailout over here, a "We have to make 'tough choices'," bill over there. . .
The saddest part will be watching all the Democrats who fall for it shout down everyone trying to point out that the train is coming off the fucking tracks. It's okay, though! As long as we maintain our little fig leaves*, everything will be all right!
*
We don't actually have them yet, but they have been promised, so it should be any day now. Maybe, next election! T_T
preach
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
There's some novelty in having someone with Larry David's voice for president. Funnier than Hilary's drawl.
I am sure for some votes abuela is doing the Larry voice too.
Howard Dean...what in the actual FUCK? Not like this man, not like this. This is the same dude that straight up said in '09 that the ACA wasn't worth passing without a real public option. Really disappointing to hear that he's flipped.
LouisaFerre
Member
The way people just glossed over the TPP with regards to Obama and Hilary really made me lose some faith in american politics, moreso when I saw some people who disliked it but STILL believed Hilary's comments about "not being satisfied" with it when she was part of the administration that created it for the past 8 years. She's really not someone who inspires any kind of confidence in me that we'll be moving away from protecting corporate interests at the expense of the American people.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
It's amazing how every time i see Hillary speak she never speak about actual problems, the financial deregulation, corps superpower on politics, the 2008 crysis for which not a single banker went to jail, the fact that banks are now even bigger then they were before the 2008 crysis and are going to invest again in risky projects, the fact that healthcare in america is absurdly costly and inefficient, the increase in wealth inequality , etc... it make me so hopeless in toward of the future of the US. And Sanders is seen a socialist, enemy of the people? What's wrong with this world.
And why should she inspire confidence? She's a corporate person herself, throughout her entire career she has been one.
If one actually had the patience to sit down and listen to me ramble on about how much shit she's been involved in since the beginning of her political career, we'd be here all day.
The clintons's mindshare as being 'for the people' is probably one of the most elaborate cons of the 90s and 2000s.
It was Bill and his own treasury secretaries that deregulated a large portion of the banking sector before he left office to begin with, and Hillary was(and still is) in favor of that.
Bill Maher about the possibilities of Bernie becoming president:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-s-too-late.html?via=desktop&source=facebook
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-s-too-late.html?via=desktop&source=facebook
Republic of Ezo
Member
If it's really Sanders vs. Trump I think Bloomberg will legitimately jump in. And then who the hell knows what will happen.
Income tax , usa
10% $0 $9,225
15% $9,226 $37,450
25% $37,451 $90,750
28% $90,751 $189,300
33% $189,301 $411,500
35% $411,501 $413,200
39.6% $413,201+
Income tax , sweden
0% from 0 kr to 18,800 kr (~0 2,690 USD)
Circa 31% (ca. 7% county and 24% municipality tax): from 18,800 kr to 433,900 kr (~2,690 62,140 USD)
31% + 20% (51%): from 433,900 kr to 615,700 kr (~62,140 88,180 USD)
31% + 25% (56%): above 615,700 kr (88,180 USD and up)
An acutal welfare system would be a big step forward for usa , but either everybody pays for it (especially the middle class) or you're gonna fail.
10% $0 $9,225
15% $9,226 $37,450
25% $37,451 $90,750
28% $90,751 $189,300
33% $189,301 $411,500
35% $411,501 $413,200
39.6% $413,201+
Income tax , sweden
0% from 0 kr to 18,800 kr (~0 2,690 USD)
Circa 31% (ca. 7% county and 24% municipality tax): from 18,800 kr to 433,900 kr (~2,690 62,140 USD)
31% + 20% (51%): from 433,900 kr to 615,700 kr (~62,140 88,180 USD)
31% + 25% (56%): above 615,700 kr (88,180 USD and up)
An acutal welfare system would be a big step forward for usa , but either everybody pays for it (especially the middle class) or you're gonna fail.
VendettaRed07
Member
"Senator Sanders certainly has no intention of taking away anyone's healthcare, the question is, would his plan, result in the kind of chaos of trying to implement it that would in fact undo peoples health care?"-Howard Dean.
But let's continue character assasination of people claiming "They've turned their back on single payer and are nothing but corporate shills now!" because they express concern over completely throwing out the first major progress the party has made in improving people's healthcare nationally after failing to make any traction since the 1940s, and going back to zero one term later.
No one in the democratic party is arguing against the idea of single payer or a universal national health care system. But the practicality of it, how we get there and what's politically possible is actually a pretty big deal.
No... No, there aren't. This is the delusion that we're talking about.
People don't see the distinction. He'll get torn to shreds for being a socialist and in the end it will hurt him with the majority of the US population.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Man Americans get some great people running for office. First Obama and now Bernie. It'd be a mistake not to vote for him. Haven't heard a politician sound so sensible in my life.
Endorsement from Shaun King. Pretty nice read:
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/natio...ndidate-president-article-1.2498007?cid=bitly
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/natio...ndidate-president-article-1.2498007?cid=bitly
Not to get into hyperbole and stuff about King of black people and all that, but is this a big deal? I know BLM weren't very satisfied with how Sanders was handling racial issues and having one of their big proponents coming out to align with him might be something important no?
was expecting him to endorse Bernie for a while now.
I wasn't necessarily expecting an outright endorsement but I had suspected he leaned towards Bernie.
That is "king of black people" in a nutshell. We don't have a 'sponsor', but it is hard for us to think for ourselves, which makes it harder to teach people something new.
A lot of people will just run with the democratic establishment because that's all they know how to do, and more alarmingly, the black democratic establishment is on Hillary's side, and has been since the strange narrative of "first black president" is in the Clinton camp. Media figures like Steve harvey and other types can just demagogue all they want...
They shut down Cornel west as tight as they could when he dared to say Obama's administration treated Wall Street with kid gloves, in addition to many other industries, thus making him a pawn, therefore going against advancing African American livelihood
Well see you kind of took it in that direction when I didn't want to go there. I'm well aware the Shaun Kings, the Jessie Jacksons, etc. etc. aren't the kings of black folk and their endorsment doesn't mean a sweeping one for all of the black folk out there.
I was just curious if it was at least a small small sign that maybe he is starting to at least get the interest, if not the vote, of some of the black community. Again not lumping people together on this one, I was more just wondering as I know BLM has protested Bernie before and they have had serious issues with his campaigns coverage on things like police brutality and the like.
There was actually a pretty cool (and brief) conversation about Sanders and Clinton on the Breakfast Club a few days ago. Charlamagne said that he loves Bernie, but many black voters would rather vote for someone they're more familiar with. And obviously, a lot of people see him as unelectable.
- Status