• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Berning down the house!

Delvo said:
Gotta love how the reason we need to go for another corporatist insider-machine candidate like Hillary is because the Republicans would be mean to an actual lefty, which must mean the corporatist insider-machine type is immune to that... but the reason Hillary lost is because the Republicans were mean to her...
Click to expand...

That's not how the argument goes. I know because I'm one of the original promulgators on these boards. Trump wasn't being nicer to Bernie because they have so much in common. He was being nicer because his full array of weapons (as with the Great Right Wing Noise Machine) were focused on Hillary.

Had Bernie won the nomination he would have gone, in the blink of an eye, from "Rustic Folksy Man of the People Who's a Thorn in the Establishment's Side" to "OMG, New York City Jew Boy Socialist Who Honeymooned in Roosha Before Roosha Was Wonderful".

In short, it was that knowledge of the modus operandi of the right wing and the twenty year campaign to smear the Clintons (and seventy year campaign to smear the New Deal) was/is all the proof you need. If you could find us one Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency in the past thirty years who they didn't do that to, we could chalk it up to paranoia.

You have to spot the anomalies. Why is the fox setting that nice table and offering fresh niblets and a nice cabernet sauvignon to the residents of the chicken coop?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Had Bernie won the nomination he would have gone, in the blink of an eye, from "Rustic Folksy Man of the People Who's a Thorn in the Establishment's Side" to "OMG, New York City Jew Boy Socialist Who Honeymooned in Roosha Before Roosha Was Wonderful".
Click to expand...

Trump was saying that during the primaries, too:

https://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/15/maniac-communist-trump-goes-bernie-sanders-rally

'Maniac, Communist': Trump Goes Off on Bernie Sanders at Rally
Click to expand...

She's gotta give everything away because this maniac that was standing on her right was giving everything away, so she’s following! That's what's happening," he said.

Trump went on to refer to Sanders as a "socialist-slash-communist," adding that nobody wants to use the word "communist" to describe Sanders.

"He's gonna tax you people at 90 percent; he's gonna take everything. And nobody's heard the term 'communist.' I call him a socialist-slash-communist because that's what he is."
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
This happens every election. The internet gets itself worked into a frenzy over some outside the mainstream darkhorse candidate, they convince themselves he can win, make up all sorts of conspiracy theories about why he didn't, wash, rinse, repeat.



Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, kinda of Ralph Nader, (arguably) Bat Buchanan, hell Ross Perot was almost like a weird, proto-version of it.



And the idea that Bernie Sanders lost the election for Clinton is laughable. He came in behind Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and Darrel Castle and as always everyone was running a distant second to perennial write in favorite "Did Note Vote" who has held every elected office in America since forever.
Click to expand...
You left Trump off your list of outside the mainstream dark horse candidates.
 
Bernie just needs enough donations for another house and another sports car and then he'll drop out
 
kellyb said:
Had Bernie won the nomination he would have gone, in the blink of an eye, from "Rustic Folksy Man of the People Who's a Thorn in the Establishment's Side" to "OMG, New York City Jew Boy Socialist Who Honeymooned in Roosha Before Roosha Was Wonderful".
Click to expand...
Trump was saying that during the primaries, too:

https://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/15/maniac-communist-trump-goes-bernie-sanders-rally
Trump went on to refer to Sanders as a "socialist-slash-communist," adding that nobody wants to use the word "communist" to describe Sanders.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure if you dig deep enough you will find a few attacks on Sanders, from Trump or other republicans during the primaries.

But, those attacks were relatively minor (compared to what was directed at Clinton, and compared to what Sanders would have encountered had he become the nominee) and were certainly not sustained. Did Trump mention Sander's and the "Yankee Die" rally? How about Sanders' criminal activities? No, he didn't. He went after the relatively low-hanging fruit, but in an election campaign the attacks would have been much much deeper, and they would have come from more than just Trump.

And while he may have criticized Sanders during that particular rally, that is at least partially offset by some of the nicer things he said about him.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/19/trump-bernie-sanders-1175611
 
Foolmewunz said:
That's not how the argument goes. I know because I'm one of the original promulgators on these boards. Trump wasn't being nicer to Bernie because they have so much in common. He was being nicer because his full array of weapons (as with the Great Right Wing Noise Machine) were focused on Hillary.

Had Bernie won the nomination he would have gone, in the blink of an eye, from "Rustic Folksy Man of the People Who's a Thorn in the Establishment's Side" to "OMG, New York City Jew Boy Socialist Who Honeymooned in Roosha Before Roosha Was Wonderful".

In short, it was that knowledge of the modus operandi of the right wing and the twenty year campaign to smear the Clintons (and seventy year campaign to smear the New Deal) was/is all the proof you need. If you could find us one Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency in the past thirty years who they didn't do that to, we could chalk it up to paranoia.

You have to spot the anomalies. Why is the fox setting that nice table and offering fresh niblets and a nice cabernet sauvignon to the residents of the chicken coop?
Click to expand...


Well, on the bright side, that's one they won't be using this time around.



I mean they can, of course, but ... you know ...
 
I’m trying to figure out if I’m just going mad here or if I’m just missing something important b/c my knowledge of financial law & economics is relatively spotty. (Both possibilities strike me as totally plausible.)


A few premises for your consideration:

1) Large banks are required by law to keep at least 10% of their deposit liabilities in reserve.

2) Some fraction of depositors will want to pull out of these large banks immediately upon being informed that said banks are being forced to break up into a number of smaller banks. Some will do this for the sake of convenience, others for the sake of risk mitigation.

3) Said fraction may well represent in excess of 10% of the deposits in any given large bank, thereby triggering a liquidity crisis.

4) Bernie Sanders’ proposal to simultaneously and forcibly break up J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will create six separate chances for such a liquidity crisis to happen. Even if any given large bank has a 90% of weathering the customer reshuffle intact, the odds of all six surviving would be barely better than a coin flip.

5) If even just one of these institutions goes belly-up, we could see cascading failures akin to the Lehman Bros. catastrophe, putting other institutions at further risk.

Without engaging in ad hom (e.g. “You just hate Bernie,” etc.) which of these premises would you guys dispute most strongly? I'd like to be very wrong about this, for the sake of sleeping more soundly at night.
 
Last edited:
I think Democrats need a candidate who isn't 80.

Slight exaggeration but not much.

Even if Sanders had both houses of Congress, I doubt if much of his legislative agenda could pass. Say he gets the presidency - then what? He's an appealing voice from the wilderness, but has he been an effective legislator?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
What do you think is missing?
Click to expand...

Check out Andrew Yang's Policy Page:
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

Where are Bernie's policies? Where are your candidates policies?
US Senator Cory Booker (New Jersey): No policy positions at all on website.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (Indiana): No policy positions at all on website.

Former US Housing Secretary Julian Castro (Texas): No policy positions at all on website.

Former Congressman John Delaney (Maryland): Some policy positions here: https://www.johndelaney.com/issues/
(click each one to expand for bullet list of items)

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii): No policy positions at all on website.

US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York): No policy positions at all on website.

US Senator Kamala Harris (California): No policy positions at all on website.

Governor Jay Inslee (Washington): Priorities statement here, https://www.jayinslee.com/meet/priorities

US Senator Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota): No policy positions at all on website.

US Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont): No policy positions at all on website.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts): Policy positions here: https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/

yang2020.PNG



Bernie Sanders is like your stoner college roomate
Asked to clarify his panegyrics to "fair trade," Sanders replied "what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States." If you want to pay $5,000 for that shiny new iPhone, Bernie Sanders is your guy!

Sanders is like a wind-up doll spouting out reliable, populist platitudes — "Millionaries and billionaires," "the top tenth of the top 1%," "rigged economy" — that his audiences of debt-strapped, ignorant Millennials applaud like trained seals.
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders is not the "conscience" of the Left. He's more like the Sarah Palin of the Left: clueless, but embodying its cultural preferences and giving voice to its prejudices. Whereas Palin was the godfearin', plainspeakin' "hockey mom," Bernie is a righteously angry agitator.
Click to expand...
Sanders, like Trump, has sentiments and platitudes but no meat to bite into.
 
Elagabalus said:
Well, on the bright side, that's one they won't be using this time around.



I mean they can, of course, but ... you know ...
Click to expand...

Do you really misunderestimate the venality of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine? Donnie and Vlad could be discussing whether a guy can get a reach around and they'll ignore it.

Obama states he'll meet with North Korea. Treason!
Clinton Foundation too cozy with the same governments Flynn and Don Jr. are now selling the country out to? Lock Her Up!

They don't give a rat's p'toot about the moral justification of their rants; they're just looking for sound bytes that crowds can repeat at rallies. My guess would be "Comrade Sanders! Comrade Sanders! Comrade Sanders!"
 
d4m10n said:
I’m trying to figure out if I’m just going mad here or if I’m just missing something important b/c my knowledge of financial law & economics is relatively spotty. (Both possibilities strike me as totally plausible.)


A few premises for your consideration:

1) Large banks are required by law to keep at least 10% of their deposit liabilities in reserve.

2) Some fraction of depositors will want to pull out of these large banks immediately upon being informed that said banks are being forced to break up into a number of smaller banks. Some will do this for the sake of convenience, others for the sake of risk mitigation.

3) Said fraction may well represent in excess of 10% of the deposits in any given large bank, thereby triggering a liquidity crisis.

4) Bernie Sanders’ proposal to simultaneously and forcibly break up J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will create six separate chances for such a liquidity crisis to happen. Even if any given large bank has a 90% of weathering the customer reshuffle intact, the odds of all six surviving would be barely better than a coin flip.

5) If even just one of these institutions goes belly-up, we could see cascading failures akin to the Lehman Bros. catastrophe, putting other institutions at further risk.

Without engaging in ad hom (e.g. “You just hate Bernie,” etc.) which of these premises would you guys dispute most strongly? I'd like to be very wrong about this, for the sake of sleeping more soundly at night.
Click to expand...

#2. Nobody's going to panic bank run over some paperwork legally splitting a bank into separate divisions.
 
kellyb said:
#2. Nobody's going to panic bank run over some paperwork legally splitting a bank into separate divisions.
Click to expand...
:)
edaf1f7a004febc0c0429070eaaf026f.jpg


...but seriously given the choice between moving my assets proactively into a middling (non targeted) bank of my own choosing or trusting the breakup system to play out in my favor, the choice seems pretty damn obvious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom