"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread - Part 1

[terry78]

It's possibly to be fiscally conservative and human rights based liberal, but it's like the two can't coexist inside the same person for some reason.

 

[summerteeth]

It's possibly to be fiscally conservative and human rights based liberal, but it's like the two can't coexist inside the same person for some reason.

Can't tell if serious...

 

[terry78]

That was sarcasm.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wonder when the myth of fiscal conservatism will finally die.

 

[summerteeth]

I wonder when the myth of fiscal conservatism will finally die.

Going to be tough when you compare the UK's economic rebound after the recession and France's after they went in two different directions to fix the economy and one has a 5.4% unemployment rate while the other has 10.5% unemployment. One has had 1.7% GDP growth since 2013 and the other has .3% GDP growth.

Even if you look at our economic recovery, after the initial stimulus and TARP spending which ended the recession and stabilized things it's really been free market forces that have led to economic growth. Once we solved the problems with the markets. The past 6 years we've pretty much been governed by fiscal conservatism. We've seen government slashing spending through the sequestration. It's difficult to praise Obama for economic recovery and not praise fiscal conservatism in some fashion.

 

[Spooderman]

So Bernie won Wyoming by over 10 points but the delegates are going 50/50. gfsfalnangr, at least it isn't a big state.

 

[Fenrir]

You will be hard pressed to find any economist worth his salt to say that TARP wasn't important in stabilizing the financial markets and ending the recession and Sanders voted against that measure.

Actually I support his voting against TARP, primarily because economist or not, no one with a right mind and conscience would approve unconditionally giving the money to banks and FIs to bail themselves out while homes were still being foreclosed and people's interest rates were being jacked up. When the crash happened, the government had Wall Street by the balls, and should have pushed for a better deal for the taxpayers who were suffering in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The government could have lent the money at much higher interest rates or invested as a shareholder and the banks would still have taken that deal because they were so desperate, and then the government could have used that money to fund social security and other public welfare programs to cushion the blow on the ordinary citizen instead of calling for austerity measures that only exacerbated that pain.

I am a conservative, yes, but I also think it's stupid to only make decisions based on your ideals instead of approaching the situation with the best solution. You should always look at what's the best way to solve the problem. It was clear that in the midst of a huge recession laissez-faire capitalism wasn't going to fix the problem because the markets broke themselves at that point in time. Letting the banks fail would have plunged us into a depression and Bernie voted ostensibly to do just that when he voted against TARP. It was poor judgement and it was his ideals that blinded him to the best possible solution. That he didn't think it was fair or just in his mind even if it was going to end the recession.

Again, in retrospect, no one would argue against the bailout. What they can argue against (and very successfully at that) are the terms of the bailout. And you know what, because of that a President Bernie Sanders would actually be a good thing for imposing greater discipline in Wall Street, because they would know that if they don't get their s**t in order and something else happens again, they won't have the free lifeline from the government they did before.

It also doesn't mean that markets or capitalism are always bad. Things are always more nuanced. It's why I voted for Obama in 2008 because I thought he'd be more likely to push for government intervention.

It's not about nuance. It's about people being selective in their beliefs. If you are a genuine (even if not ideologically extreme) capitalist, then you would never accept the current oligopoly of firms on Wall Street.

I would say the VA scandal was an error in judgement. He places too much faith in government programs and was very slow to believe that it could be failing our veterans. He failed to act on reports saying that their was a waitlist and instead defended the VA.

Can you give me some verifiable proof of that please?

And even when all is said and done, you have barely given me two or three examples. That's hardly being wrong "plenty of times". If I have the time, I'm sure I can dig up at least a dozen issues on which both Clinton and Kasich have been catastrophically wrong. That still leaves Sanders as the candidate with a superior overall record.

 

[Fenrir]

McCain has been one of the biggest voices for campaign finance reform same with Lindsay Graham. This is a bipartisan issue, Bernie is not the only voice on this matter, I know his supporters think this is the case but it's not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEaF4yNYVkY

See Chance, not all Bernie supporters are apparently aware of McCain-Feingold.

I'm sorry that is not what I asked. I asked you to show me where McCain raised the issue of money in politics (not campaign finance reform, that is a related but smaller issue) during his 2008 run because you said he did and I don't remember him doing that. And no, Sanders supporters don't think he is the only voice in this matter, but he is most certainly the only one who is the loudest at the moment and who has stuck by his principles of not running in a presidential election with money taken from super pacs and special interests.

 

[Matt]

I'm sorry that is not what I asked. I asked you to show me where McCain raised the issue of money in politics (not campaign finance reform, that is a related but smaller issue) during his 2008 run because you said he did and I don't remember him doing that. And no, Sanders supporters don't think he is the only voice in this matter, but he is most certainly the only one who is the loudest at the moment and who has stuck by his principles of not running in a presidential election with money taken from super pacs and special interests.

McCain Says Yes to Public Financing

By agreeing to public fundraising, candidates limit their ability to raise money, involve themselves with PACs, and even limit what they can spend.

So there ya go. Summerteeth is right. Bernie doesn't have a monopoly on money in politics. That being said, I'm sure you'll change the parameters of the conversation once again as you seem to do so any time you are wrong.

Fenrir: ONLY BERNIE SPEAKS ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS!

Summerteeth: McCain does too.

Fenrir: I meant during the 2008 campaign!

Summerteeth: McCain spoke out about campaign finance reform a lot during 2008.

Fenrir: Money in politics is broader than campaign finance reform! (This argument confuses me, but okay).

I'm sure considering your trend, your next post will be something like this:

Matt: Here is a link about McCain accepting public funding.

Fenrir: Not enough! I said money in politics! Not public funding!

In other words, you are just changing the parameters of the debate any time you lose. To act as if a serious presidential candidate (which John McCain was and Bernie Sanders is not) talking about constitutional amendments regarding campaign finance reform and accepting public funding is not addressing money in politics is just disingenuous.

 

[Clark-Kent]

So Bernie won Wyoming by over 10 points but the delegates are going 50/50. gfsfalnangr, at least it isn't a big state.

I think both the left and right have to rethink how candidates "earn" the nomination.

 

[Fenrir]

McCain Says Yes to Public Financing

By agreeing to public fundraising, candidates limit their ability to raise money, involve themselves with PACs, and even limit what they can spend.

So there ya go. Summerteeth is right. Bernie doesn't have a monopoly on money in politics. That being said, I'm sure you'll change the parameters of the conversation once again as you seem to do so any time you are wrong.

I am assuming you have some sort of natural aversion to comprehending anything I write (as evident by your deafening silence on the issue of Paul Krugman and his incredible u-turn for Hillary) , so I'll just respond to your points with things I already said, just you can stop this juvenile habit of interpreting what I said in a manner that you think you can "refute". Even in my post that you quoted it is there, clear as day: "And no, Sanders supporters don't think he is the only voice in this matter...", but like I said, you just have trouble reading what I write.

Fenrir: ONLY BERNIE SPEAKS ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS!

I never said Bernie has a monopoly on the issue of money in politics. If you think I did or if it seemed like I did, then it is clearly intended to mean among the presidential candidates in this election cycle, not that he is the only one in the entire U.S Congress or Senate to ever do so (though I admit I only know the names of two others who are on the same page: Elizabeth Warren and Tom Udall, because of the "Udall amendment" in the Senate). I already stated I had no problem or issue with McCain, and already semi-conceded the point beforehand:

If he truly did, then count me in the McCain camp from this point onwards.

Summerteeth: McCain does too.

No, that is not what he said. This is what he actually said:

People act like John McCain didn't run on this issue.

And that is what I questioned him on, because I followed the 2008 campaign and I don't remember McCain doing that. There is a difference between raising an issue and running on an issue.

Fenrir: I meant during the 2008 campaign!

As you can see above, it was summerteeth who claimed that, not me. I merely questioned him on his claim.

Summerteeth: McCain spoke out about campaign finance reform a lot during 2008.

A point I did not dispute when he mentioned McCain-Feingold.

Fenrir: Money in politics is broader than campaign finance reform! (This argument confuses me, but okay).

Because you only see what you want to believe. Campaign finance reform is an issue that is limited only to election campaigns, but the problem of money in politics extends beyond that - it covers things like the revolving door between corporations and governments (elected officials getting board seats or paid positions with corporations after they leave office or becoming lobbyists and vice versa), politicians currently in office getting exorbitant sums from corporations in the form speaking fees and other kickbacks and the problem of mainstream media clearly having a conflict of interest in reporting the truth about this matter because they are the ones who receive this money to run campaign ads and so on and so forth. All these aspects are not covered by campaign finance reform even though they are just as serious.

I'm sure considering your trend, your next post will be something like
this:

Matt: Here is a link about McCain accepting public funding.

Fenrir: Not enough! I said money in politics! Not public funding!

In other words, you are just changing the parameters of the debate any time you lose. To act as if a serious presidential candidate (which John McCain was and Bernie Sanders is not) talking about constitutional amendments regarding campaign finance reform and accepting public funding is not addressing money in politics is just disingenuous.

What is disingenuous is you "paraphrasing" and putting words in my mouth when simply could have quoted me directly, but you didn't because you know that is not what I said . And I'm not dissing McCain, I really am not, but the fact that all you could muster was one link to a blog post about McCain accepting public financing only proves my point of contention that he didn't "run on this issue" (in the words of summerteeth). As I said to summerteeth before, if McCain really did, then count me in the McCain camp.

 

[summerteeth]

Actually I support his voting against TARP, primarily because economist or not, no one with a right mind and conscience would approve unconditionally giving the money to banks and FIs to bail themselves out while homes were still being foreclosed and people's interest rates were being jacked up. When the crash happened, the government had Wall Street by the balls, and should have pushed for a better deal for the taxpayers who were suffering in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The government could have lent the money at much higher interest rates or invested as a shareholder and the banks would still have taken that deal because they were so desperate, and then the government could have used that money to fund social security and other public welfare programs to cushion the blow on the ordinary citizen instead of calling for austerity measures that only exacerbated that pain.



Again, in retrospect, no one would argue against the bailout. What they can argue against (and very successfully at that) are the terms of the bailout. And you know what, because of that a President Bernie Sanders would actually be a good thing for imposing greater discipline in Wall Street, because they would know that if they don't get their s**t in order and something else happens again, they won't have the free lifeline from the government they did before.



It's not about nuance. It's about people being selective in their beliefs. If you are a genuine (even if not ideologically extreme) capitalist, then you would never accept the current oligopoly of firms on Wall Street.



Can you give me some verifiable proof of that please?

And even when all is said and done, you have barely given me two or three examples. That's hardly being wrong "plenty of times". If I have the time, I'm sure I can dig up at least a dozen issues on which both Clinton and Kasich have been catastrophically wrong. That still leaves Sanders as the candidate with a superior overall record.

I don't even know where to start here. You realize that there were conditions that the banks had to agree to in order to get TARP funds maybe it wasn't perfect but there were conditions and to vote against it was a mistake.

I mean I don't agree with him on anything except campaign finance reform, I just brought up things that regardless of what side you are on were clearly big mistakes.

I mean, I guess President Sanders would just wave a magic wand and he will get everything he wants done even with at the very least a Republican controlled House.


Sanders on VA
[YT]bbV6FcXGjew[/YT]

 

[Matt]

I am assuming you have some sort of natural aversion to comprehending anything I write (as evident by your deafening silence on the issue of Paul Krugman and his incredible u-turn for Hillary) , so I'll just respond to your points with things I already said, just you can stop this juvenile habit of interpreting what I said in a manner that you think you can "refute". Even in my post that you quoted it is there, clear as day: "And no, Sanders supporters don't think he is the only voice in this matter...", but like I said, you just have trouble reading what I write.



I never said Bernie has a monopoly on the issue of money in politics. If you think I did or if it seemed like I did, then it is clearly intended to mean among the presidential candidates in this election cycle, not that he is the only one in the entire U.S Congress or Senate to ever do so (though I admit I only know the names of two others who are on the same page: Elizabeth Warren and Tom Udall, because of the "Udall amendment" in the Senate). I already stated I had no problem or issue with McCain, and already semi-conceded the point beforehand:





No, that is not what he said. This is what he actually said:



And that is what I questioned him on, because I followed the 2008 campaign and I don't remember McCain doing that. There is a difference between raising an issue and running on an issue.



As you can see above, it was summerteeth who claimed that, not me. I merely questioned him on his claim.



A point I did not dispute when he mentioned McCain-Feingold.



Because you only see what you want to believe. Campaign finance reform is an issue that is limited only to election campaigns, but the problem of money in politics extends beyond that - it covers things like the revolving door between corporations and governments (elected officials getting board seats or paid positions with corporations after they leave office or becoming lobbyists and vice versa), politicians currently in office getting exorbitant sums from corporations in the form speaking fees and other kickbacks and the problem of mainstream media clearly having a conflict of interest in reporting the truth about this matter because they are the ones who receive this money to run campaign ads and so on and so forth. All these aspects are not covered by campaign finance reform even though they are just as serious.



What is disingenuous is you "paraphrasing" and putting words in my mouth when simply could have quoted me directly, but you didn't because you know that is not what I said . And I'm not dissing McCain, I really am not, but the fact that all you could muster was one link to a blog post about McCain accepting public financing only proves my point of contention that he didn't "run on this issue" (in the words of summerteeth). As I said to summerteeth before, if McCain really did, then count me in the McCain camp.

You misunderstand me. I don't respond to your followup points because you have all of the intellectual depth of a typical Sanders supporter and just talk in circles (case in point, your conversation with summerteeth).

 

[Fenrir]

I don't even know where to start here. You realize that there were conditions that the banks had to agree to in order to get TARP funds maybe it wasn't perfect but there were conditions and to vote against it was a mistake.

When it comes to Sanders, you crucify him for not being a saint and then use this kind of compromising and puerile rhetoric "maybe it wasn't perfect" when it comes to the issue of just how quickly and easily the government decided to pull out the big banks from a mess of their own doing? Give me a break.

And please, DO enlighten us about what these conditions actually were (aside from being a checklist of qualifications with regards to who'll get TARP funds). As you said, there's perfect, so let's see how imperfect they really were. Even if we assume that Sanders voted on ideological grounds on this bill, he still had the right judgment about the fact that we were letting the banks off way too easy on this with little to no accountability despite the fact that it was their trades and the instruments they created that were responsible for the crash.

Millions of people lost their jobs, homes and pensions yet for some unfathomable reason in spite of hundreds of books, articles, leaked emails and testimonies being published documenting the kind of fraudulent practices on Wall Street, there have been no major criminal prosecutions against the players involved, ALL of whom have to date collectively paid more than $110 billion in settlements (MOST of it tax-deductible no less!) without admitting any wrongdoing. If the TARP bill had the kind of punitive conditions that the big financial institutions truly deserved, then I would have unquestionably agreed with you that voting against it was a mistake. As it so happened, that was not the case.

I mean I don't agree with him on anything except campaign finance reform, I just brought up things that regardless of what side you are on were clearly big mistakes.

Again, even if I give you that cookie, how does his record overall compare against every other candidate in the race? The anti-Sanders camp pretends as if we have our pick of the litter of angels we can choose from, and frankly, it is starting to become more than a little annoying right now. If you want to have a productive discussion, don't just whine about how bad Sanders is. Give me an alternative. Show me how your candidate is better.

I asked you to give me information about Kasich's record and you dodged the point. That is pretty self-explanatory.

I mean, I guess President Sanders would just wave a magic wand and he will get everything he wants done even with at the very least a Republican controlled House.

The election of a President Sanders would send a loud and clear message to the political class that the American public is no longer going to accept status quo with only incremental improvements. And I have already mentioned myself in this thread and others (see my posts from a month or two ago) about the epic c**kblock the Republicans (and maybe even a few Democrats) would have in store him. Yet he'll still have my support, because on the issues that I care about (money in politics, corporate welfare, universal healthcare, climate change) there is no other candidate in this race even comes close to representing them.

Sanders on VA
[YT]bbV6FcXGjew[/YT]

I must say, he did sound very defensive on that and him defending the VA secretary didn't do him any favors either. Thanks for the share.

 

[Fenrir]

You misunderstand me. I don't respond to your followup points because you have all of the intellectual depth of a typical Sanders supporter and just talk in circles (case in point, your conversation with summerteeth).

Thank you for responding like a petulant child. I guess I should be grateful you're not a mod anymore.

 

[Victarion]

Prior to the me seeing that washington post interview, the main thing keeping me away from Bernie were his tax hikes. I'm already doling out enough to the gov't. That interview was fair cringey though.

 

[summerteeth]

When it comes to Sanders, you crucify him for not being a saint and then use this kind of compromising and puerile rhetoric "maybe it wasn't perfect" when it comes to the issue of just how quickly and easily the government decided to pull out the big banks from a mess of their own doing? Give me a break.

And please, DO enlighten us about what these conditions actually were (aside from being a checklist of qualifications with regards to who'll get TARP funds). As you said, there's perfect, so let's see how imperfect they really were. Even if we assume that Sanders voted on ideological grounds on this bill, he still had the right judgment about the fact that we were letting the banks off way too easy on this with little to no accountability despite the fact that it was their trades and the instruments they created that were responsible for the crash.

Millions of people lost their jobs, homes and pensions yet for some unfathomable reason in spite of hundreds of books, articles, leaked emails and testimonies being published documenting the kind of fraudulent practices on Wall Street, there have been no major criminal prosecutions against the players involved, ALL of whom have to date collectively paid more than $110 billion in settlements (MOST of it tax-deductible no less!) without admitting any wrongdoing. If the TARP bill had the kind of punitive conditions that the big financial institutions truly deserved, then I would have unquestionably agreed with you that voting against it was a mistake. As it so happened, that was not the case.



Again, even if I give you that cookie, how does his record overall compare against every other candidate in the race? The anti-Sanders camp pretends as if we have our pick of the litter of angels we can choose from, and frankly, it is starting to become more than a little annoying right now. If you want to have a productive discussion, don't just whine about how bad Sanders is. Give me an alternative. Show me how your candidate is better.

I asked you to give me information about Kasich's record and you dodged the point. That is pretty self-explanatory.



The election of a President Sanders would send a loud and clear message to the political class that the American public is no longer going to accept status quo with only incremental improvements. And I have already mentioned myself in this thread and others (see my posts from a month or two ago) about the epic c**kblock the Republicans (and maybe even a few Democrats) would have in store him. Yet he'll still have my support, because on the issues that I care about (money in politics, corporate welfare, universal healthcare, climate change) there is no other candidate in this race even comes close to representing them.



I must say, he did sound very defensive on that and him defending the VA secretary didn't do him any favors either. Thanks for the share.

I don't crucify him for not being a saint, I criticize him for not know what he's talking about and voting against a bill that ended the recession because....he doesn't know what he's talking about. You are also missing the point, there is no such thing as a perfect bill. TARP worked and was a success maybe it didn't have everything you wanted but we are by far better with it than without it and those were the choices and Bernie chose to oppose it. That idea that I'm not going to support a good bill because it doesn't have everything I want in it is folly. The purpose was to stabilize the financial sector and it did just that at a time when it was drastically needed.

You sure ask a lot of questions, you realize you could just wikipedia TARP and find your answer probably you have the whole internet at your disposal. Anyways, from what I recall there were limits placed on executive compensation and the treasury received equity in those companies that accepted TARP funds until they were able to get out of TARP, among other stipulations. So you are wrong there were conditions.


On Kasich, I was too busy answering your other questions, you asked like 10. I also still don't understand, do you still not believe that McCain campaigned about campaign finance reform in 2008?

Anyways, Kasich...

He was chairman of the House Budget Committee and was key in creating a balanced budget. He served on the House Armed Service Committee and personally uncovered and brought to light that the military was spending way too much on tools as far as the cost per tool. It showed a need for transparency and accountability in military spending. So he helped pass a law to increase competition to help bring down prices for military tools. He negotiated with the Federal Government to get a better deal for the state of Ohio than other states ,as Governor, so that they would cover medicaid expansion under the ACA. He spoken in his support for TARP for bank bailouts. He has helped turn around the Ohio economy as Governor. There is a reason why his approval rate is so high in Ohio. I could go on and on, but you know the man has actually done things unlike Sanders who just yells about doing things. On LGBT issues he just came out and criticized the laws passed in Mississippi and North Carolina and says the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage so it is time to move on. An issue that he was wrong on in the past, but I don't understand this type of criticism where people aren't allowed to grow and learn from their mistakes.

 

[chaseter]

What's this LinkedIn story about Verizon CEO destroying Bernie over Bernie's comments?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

What's this LinkedIn story about Verizon CEO destroying Bernie over Bernie's comments?

Verizon's union workers are on strike after not coming to a new contract agreement. Bernie offered his solidarity with the workers and made assertions/statements that Verizon doesn't pay enough taxes or invest in America. Verizon's CEO then put out an article that basically refutes every one of his claims. Sanders then got huffy he got caught spouting nonsense and says he doesn't need corporate donors like his opponents.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11424594/bernie-sanders-verizon-strike-feud-linkedin-tweets

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/feel...zon-moral-economy-lowell-mcadam?trk=prof-post

 

[Marvolo]

Well he probably isnt wrong that verizon doesnt pay enough taxes. All the major corporations should be paying more taxes. And they definitely should be paying their employees better. No amount of investments in infrastructure are going to make up for those shortcomings.

 

[summerteeth]

Well he probably isnt wrong that verizon doesnt pay enough taxes. All the major corporations should be paying more taxes. And they definitely should be paying their employees better. No amount of investments in infrastructure are going to make up for those shortcomings.

Considering the OECD average marginal tax rate is 24% and they paid an effective tax rate of 35%. Considering the only country with higher corporate tax rate than us is the United Arab Emirates which has a very different economy than us and is fueled by oil profits. I don't really understand Sanders' argument here. Not surprised that Verizon CEO's response had actual substance and Sanders' had none.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Thank you for responding like a petulant child. I guess I should be grateful you're not a mod anymore.

Quoted because I love this oh so much. So, so much. t:

 

[Victarion]

Verizon's union workers are on strike after not coming to a new contract agreement. Bernie offered his solidarity with the workers and made assertions/statements that Verizon doesn't pay enough taxes or invest in America. Verizon's CEO then put out an article that basically refutes every one of his claims. Sanders then got huffy he got caught spouting nonsense and says he doesn't need corporate donors like his opponents.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11424594/bernie-sanders-verizon-strike-feud-linkedin-tweets

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/feel...zon-moral-economy-lowell-mcadam?trk=prof-post

Bernie #feltthebern

 

[summerteeth]

Bernie #feltthebern

He's a joke. The sad thing is there are a lot of people that are big supporters of him. I would love for him to take an IQ test.

 

[Kelly]

Why the snark guys? Come on.....