• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

Politifact found this Bill Clinton statement to be mostly true:
"There's not a single, solitary example that" signing the bill to end Glass-Steagall "had anything to do with the financial crash."
Click to expand...

It's a complex description of all the things that led up to the 08 financial crash. Describing the event as the product of Bill Clinton's deals with the devil banks is a marketed message that as usual, tries to turn everything into good and evil categories.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"When [Bill] Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, it was the culmination of the largest ever lobbying effort by the banking community to that date, $300m spent to convince Congress that Clinton, aided by Robert Rubin (US treasurer, previously with Goldman Sachs) and Alan Greenspan, a Milton Friedman-style supply-side economist, that the restraints on speculation should be removed. The banking community’s gratitude was and is unending. Who can blame them?

"Remarkably, today the derivatives positions held by the large banks approach 10 times those of 2007-2008. In four banks alone, they exceed the GDP of the entire world. This is the interesting consequence when unchecked risk management rests in bankers’ hands."

Can a presidential candidate have a corporation as her VP running mate?

Hillary Clinton/Goldman Sachs
Click to expand...

I don't get the bizarre obsession the Bernbots have with Hillary and Goldman Sachs. If they want to know what she says as a private citizen to private groups, they should attend the lecture.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I don't get the bizarre obsession the Bernbots have with Hillary and Goldman Sachs. If they want to know what she says as a private citizen to private groups, they should attend the lecture.
Click to expand...

Ha! Good one.

We already know what she said, it was a huge sloppy wet kiss to a company that just paid five billion in fines for scumbaggery.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Great! Then the Berntards can go back to relearning math.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's a make-work project for the members of Local 29 of the Amalgamated Cherry Pickers and Quote Miners Union. Like the emails, where they expected to find something saying "Eff 'em. What do a few dead soldiers amount to?", they think they'll find her saying, "For a five thousand dollar contribution, I'll get you invited to the innaugural ball, if you give me ten thousand dollars, I'll vote for repeal of all child labor statutes. Go Goldman Sachs! Close down on some more mortgages and put elderly homeless disabled orphans on the streets for all I care! Show me the money!"
 
Some of the Sanders supporters are stuck in the denial stage of grieving. I've been reading a lot of his supporters saying he should run as an independent. He isn't winning the majority of Democrats and they still believe he could win in the general election. They have have a magical belief that Trump supporters would support Sanders. But if that were true, why aren't they supporting him now?

Sanders himself says NY could go the way of Michigan as far as the polls being wrong despite the fact he won in Michigan with a lot of last minute registrations and crossover independents, neither of which are going to be able to vote in NY.

Today's Emerson poll has Clinton up by 15%.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Some of the Sanders supporters are stuck in the denial stage of grieving. I've been reading a lot of his supporters saying he should run as an independent. He isn't winning the majority of Democrats and they still believe he could win in the general election. They have have a magical belief that Trump supporters would support Sanders. But if that were true, why aren't they supporting him now?
Click to expand...

Not surprising. Remember the Ron Paul supporters?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Politifact found this Bill Clinton statement to be mostly true:

It's a complex description of all the things that led up to the 08 financial crash. Describing the event as the product of Bill Clinton's deals with the devil banks is a marketed message that as usual, tries to turn everything into good and evil categories.
Click to expand...
Clinton doesn't come off in a remotely positive light there, though. Mostly true because it was only one minor of several cuts to castrate Wall Street regulation is not exactly something to trumpet around.
 
H'ethetheth said:
Clinton doesn't come off in a remotely positive light there, though. Mostly true because it was only one minor of several cuts to castrate Wall Street regulation is not exactly something to trumpet around.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton did not cause the 2008 economic collapse. Full stop.
 
luchog said:
I haven't had the time to truly dig into the claims in the article, so take it how you will.

First, the superdelegates don't look like they're going to switch sides for Sanders. There have been a number of exchanges published since Monday that demonstrate that superdelegates in states that have overwhelmingly voted for Sanders are still adamant about supporting Clinton in direct opposition to the will of their electorate. There have been calls to oust them in the upcoming elections. A few have gotten quite dismissing about the popular votes in their states.

At this point, it's quite clear that even if Sanders does manage to pull a majority of pledged delegates, that is, if he wins the popular vote; the Democratic party establishment is still poised to hand the nomination to Clinton if at all possible.

Worse, this article insists that it's because of a tit-for-tat scheme hatched by the Clinton campaign before the race to the election started.

How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties
Excerpt:



Now, admittedly this is Counterpunch, a far-left somewhat extremist source. However, the mechanics of the deal are easily verified elsewhere:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ictory-fund-pacts-with-clinton-campaign/?_r=0
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...tners-with-Hillary-Clinton-through-Dark-Money
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donors_us_5627a946e4b02f6a900ed79a
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...535cea-d68f-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

IF the article is accurate as written -- and that is still a very big IF -- it's fairly conclusive evidence that this primary election is bought and paid for. I do know that the backlash against the superdelegates among the far left is getting serious; and should Sanders end up winning the popular vote and a majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates handing the nomination to Clinton would further alienate the progressive left (many of whom are already insisting that they'd rather endure a Trump presidency than vote for Clinton under those circumstances), and practically ensure a GOP victory in the general. It certainly makes it look like not only Clinton; but the entire DNC establishment is up for sale.

At the very least, it does show that Clinton is far more beholden to the 1% lobbyists than she is to the people. You don't give that much money to someone you don't believe has your interests at heart, and who is not expected to support you in return.


Cue Clinton supporters claiming "conspiracy theory" in 3... 2... 1...
Click to expand...

How is the fact checking on the non-conspiracy theory coming ? Any updates ?
 
Oh and we rank 47th in our electoral integrity.

New evidence gathered by the Electoral Integrity Project has just been released in an annual report which compares the risks of flawed and failed elections, and how far countries around the world meet international standards. The report evaluates the integrity of all 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held between 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2015 in 139 countries worldwide, including 54 national elections held in 2015.
Click to expand...

https://sites.google.com/site/elect...ts/expert-survey-2/the-year-in-elections-2015
 
I live in New York and I'll be voting tomorrow after work, picking up my wife and driving together to the polling place (like we always do). I've been impressed with Bernie Sanders but I'll be voting for Hillary. I think she's a more realistic choice. Sanders has some great ideas and I hope he stays in the Senate and fights for them because most of them will have a tough time getting through Congress.

I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton and never have been. I voted for her to be New York's U.S. Senator in 2000 and 2006 and thought she did a pretty good job. I did not vote for her in the 2008 Presidential primary; I voted for Obama. I thought then and still think he was a better choice.

The Hillary I watched serve as my Senator was very pragmatic, hardworking, able to work with Republicans and always took decent and humane positions. I expect she'll do the same as our first woman President.
 
Trakar said:
While I still support and advocate many similar, progressive, public policies, a thorough examination of his climate and science policies have forced me to downgrade his candidacy to "lessor evil" status.

In accord with this, I will no longer contribute to, or support his campaign, or any other major party candidacy this year.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should have read up on his policies before you proclaimed him as a political savior without fault?
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
I live in New York and I'll be voting tomorrow after work, picking up my wife and driving together to the polling place (like we always do). I've been impressed with Bernie Sanders but I'll be voting for Hillary. I think she's a more realistic choice. Sanders has some great ideas and I hope he stays in the Senate and fights for them because most of them will have a tough time getting through Congress.

I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton and never have been. I voted for her to be New York's U.S. Senator in 2000 and 2006 and thought she did a pretty good job. I did not vote for her in the 2008 Presidential primary; I voted for Obama. I thought then and still think he was a better choice.

The Hillary I watched serve as my Senator was very pragmatic, hardworking, able to work with Republicans and always took decent and humane positions. I expect she'll do the same as our first woman President.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

Somewhere I had the idea you hated Clinton. Glad to hear you don't.
 
The_Animus said:
Oh and we rank 47th in our electoral integrity.



https://sites.google.com/site/elect...ts/expert-survey-2/the-year-in-elections-2015
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to want to talk to their experts. We don't even get down to 100th? According to the article, they tracked those experts' "perception" of all elections from '12 to '15.

Our election in '14 (the only national election here in that period) was cancelled when the neo-fascists shut down the capital in Dec. of '13, then coerced the opposition party into not filing to run, and then got the Supreme Court to say, "well, since we don't have enough candidates, we can't have an election". The Supreme Court, the Election Council and the Opposition (Democratic Party of Thailand) are one and the same: the royalty-supported ruling class.

Oh, and then we had a coup in May of '14 and still haven't had that election. They stopped the Feb election, and in order to prevent the one that was set for July (to comply with the Election Council fiat), they staged a coup.

I'd say, "zero elections, majority party leaders sent to re-education camps, military junta ruling the country, banning of any gathering(including party meetings) of over 5 persons, suspension of habeus corpus and the constitution...." How does one get a higher score than Thailand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom