Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vini

You don't think Yang will beat Trump?

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Oh no, the newest HarrisX poll has Yang at 0%. :downs:

They should ride a book on the wild roller coaster ride the Yang campaign has gone through.

 

100% increases, 100% decreases, up and down. Its dizzying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-06-04 at 4:05 PM, jehurey said:

They should ride a book on the wild roller coaster ride the Yang campaign has gone through.

 

100% increases, 100% decreases, up and down. Its dizzying.

Kinda like Buttigieg huh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vini said:

Kinda like Buttigieg huh

Not really. Buttigieg's campaign is much more boring than Yang since his poll numbers have only been going in one direction.:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Not really. Buttigieg's campaign is much more boring than Yang since his poll numbers have only been going in one direction.:shrug:

My boy is on Maher on Friday 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exposure will be him standing next to old man Biden and Sanders during the debates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-06-01 at 8:20 PM, The Mother Fucker said:

I would love to see Trump vs Sanders

 

If I were running Trump's campaign, there's no one I'd rather run against than Bernie. I'd have a field day painting him as communist twit and a hypocrite. 

 

Harris is the one that would keep me up at night, and she's the one I'd bet big on to win the nomination. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vini said:

The exposure will be him standing next to old man Biden and Sanders during the debates

LOL sweetie.............he's not going to be standing beside him.

 

He's going to be standing at the edge of your tv screen. If there is any one half of face that looks more aesthetically pleasing, he needs to be lobbying to be on the side that is going to show it. LOL

 

With 18+ candidates, gee I wonder tv time he's going to get. 2, maybe 3 whole minutes?

 

Lincoln Chafee was polling better...............don't worry, I don't expect you to remember him:tom:which is the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

If I were running Trump's campaign, there's no one I'd rather run against than Bernie. I'd have a field day painting him as communist twit and a hypocrite. 

 

Harris is the one that would keep me up at night, and she's the one I'd bet big on to win the nomination. 

 

 

 

 

Please Harris is the weakest candidate on their right behind Cory Booker. 


When Bernie factually destroy Trump, his campaign can shout communist all they want. Only their dumb base will lap that nonsense up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-06-06 at 12:34 AM, The Mother Fucker said:

Please Harris is the weakest candidate on their right behind Cory Booker. 


When Bernie factually destroy Trump, his campaign can shout communist all they want. Only their dumb base will lap that nonsense up.

 

 

 

Bernie's such a policy lightweight that melted when he was grilled by the NYPost's editorial board. He couldn't even explain how he'd break up the banks despite it being one of his main planks and having 50 years to come up with an answer.

 

He's also not a street fighter. Look at how meek he was against Hillary. Compare that to Heels Up Harris during the recent Senate hearings.

 

And unlike Millennials who've been fed a whitewashed version of the Cold War by the academic left, Silents, Boomers, and Gen Xers lived through the Cold War, and they vote in a much higher percentage than the Millennials. We have Bernie on tape and in print praising  the the most murderous political ideology of all time. "The Soviet system is so much better than the West's and oh vey aren't those Sandinistas great?"

 

Good luck, comrade.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

Bernie's such a policy lightweight that melted when he was grilled by the NYPost's editorial board. He couldn't even explain how he'd break up the banks despite it being one of his main planks and having 50 years to come up with an answer.

 

He's also not a street fighter. Look at how meek he was against Hillary. Compare that to Heels Up Harris during the recent Senate hearings.

 

And unlike Millennials who've been fed a whitewashed version of the Cold War by the academic left, Silents, Boomers, and Gen Xers lived through the Cold War, and they vote in a much higher percentage than the Millennials. We have Bernie on tape and in print praising  the the most murderous political ideology of all time. "The Soviet system is so much better than the West's and oh vey aren't those Sandinistas great?"

 

Good luck, comrade.

 

I believe you are actually talking about the New York Daily News questioning Bernie Sanders in 2016 regarding the banks.

 

And your claim is bullshit..........because the New York Daily News gave Bernie questions with false information:

 

 

Quote

 

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. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.

 

Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

 

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.

 

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?

This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.

 

The NY Daily news editor changes from the understanding in that conversation that they are talking about the powers of the Treasury Department, and switch over to "the Fed has that power????" [pretend to look at Sanders like he doesn't know what he's talking about]..........and they move BACK to discussing the Treasury Department, and then BACK to saying "so you're saying the Fed can do that?" [same exasperated look]

 

I don't know if that was an intentional NY Daily News trap questions......but it sure looks like it.

 

And it seems like you are intentionally still trying to peddle that bullshit 3 years later.....OR you're simply just not that well informed. Take your pick.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jehurey said:

And your claim is bullshit.

 

Citing a far-left Huff Post hack LOL! 

 

The Daily News didn't confuse the Treasury Department with the Fed, they asked him if he thought the Fed itself had the ability to break up the banks, and he had no idea. And when he was asked how he'd break them up to avoid unintended harm, he dodged the question and said he's not running them, leaving the onus on them to avoid it. And that was only the beginning of the meltdown.

 

He was widely trashed widely for it by the mainstream leftwing press.

 

Washington Post: 

"This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders"

 

Atlantic:

"Throughout his interview, Sanders seemed taken aback when he was pressed on policy—and not just on the matters that are peripheral to his approach, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or interrogation of detainees, but even on bread-and-butter matters like breaking up the big banks, the Democratic presidential hopeful came across as tentative, unprepared, or unaware."

 

Slate: 

"Bernie Sanders hit hard for New York Daily News interview." 

 

"A person running for president being asked tough questions and evading or struggling to answer them is not out of the ordinary per se, but the Daily News did an especially good job of pinning Sanders down on a number of fronts and is rightfully getting credit for it."

 

Vanity Fair:

"Bernie Sanders Admits He Isn't Sure How to Break Up Big Banks"

 

Politico:

"Bernie Sanders does know how to break up the banks"

 

Leave it to Jerry to back the airhead communist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

Citing a far-left Huff Post hack LOL! 

 

The Daily News didn't confuse the Treasury Department with the Fed, they asked him if he thought the Fed itself had the ability to break up the banks, and he had no idea. And when he was asked how he'd break them up to avoid unintended harm, he dodged the question and said he's not running them, leaving the onus on them to avoid it. And that was only the beginning of the meltdown.

 

He was widely trashed widely for it by the mainstream leftwing press.

 

Washington Post: 

"This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders"

 

Atlantic:

"Throughout his interview, Sanders seemed taken aback when he was pressed on policy—and not just on the matters that are peripheral to his approach, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or interrogation of detainees, but even on bread-and-butter matters like breaking up the big banks, the Democratic presidential hopeful came across as tentative, unprepared, or unaware."

 

Slate: 

"Bernie Sanders hit hard for New York Daily News interview." 

 

"A person running for president being asked tough questions and evading or struggling to answer them is not out of the ordinary per se, but the Daily News did an especially good job of pinning Sanders down on a number of fronts and is rightfully getting credit for it."

 

Vanity Fair:

"Bernie Sanders Admits He Isn't Sure How to Break Up Big Banks"

 

Politico:

"Bernie Sanders does know how to break up the banks"

 

Leave it to Jerry to back the airhead communist. 

Nope.............they cited multiple sources who broke the interview down.

 

 

And I literally just SHOWED the exact quotes from the interview.

 

I can quote the NY Daily News.

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

 

 

Quote

 

Daily News: Now, switching to the financial sector, to Wall Street. Speaking broadly, you said that within the first 100 days of your administration you'd be drawing up...your Treasury Department would be drawing up a too-big-to-fail list. Would you expect that that's essentially the list that already exists under Dodd-Frank? Under the Financial Stability Oversight Council?

 

Sanders: Yeah. I mean these are the largest financial institutions in the world….

 

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

 

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.

 

You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.

 

Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one.

 

Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.

 

And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.

 

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

You're now trying to rely on the same news institutions that you don't like to give any credit to when they are reporting on Trump.

 

You can literally see in the interview transcript, that the NY Daily News is switching between two different entities here on the fly.

 

And then Washington Post editorial writers and online news pundits immediately starting reacting to it, trying to portray as Bernie not knowing what he's saying.

 

Even Cenk from TYT goes through each line of the transcript to show NY Daily News bungling the facts

 

 

 

You actually thought you could laugh away something just because the introduction came from HuffPost??? LOL

 

You know that I'm right just by reading the official transcript. You don't have much room here to argue.

 

Take your pick..................you're peddling bullshit from 3 years ago, or you're uninformed.

 

The bullshit clearly worked............because, look at you still repeating it 3 years late. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

You're now trying to rely on the same news institutions that you don't like to give any credit to when they are reporting on Trump.

 

I showed that the blue chip sites on your side thought the interview was a trainwreck. Your OWN SIDE. 

 

Direct from the transcript:

 

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: 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: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

 

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.


 

 

Yay+i+get+to+use+this+again+_afe126fd60b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

I showed that the blue chip sites on your side thought the interview was a trainwreck. Your OWN SIDE. 

 

Direct from the transcript:

 

 

Yay+i+get+to+use+this+again+_afe126fd60b

Yup, he knows he lost this.

 

he still doesn't address the ACTUAL transcript of what was said.

I love that I now have him losing arguments on an accelerated basis rather than the traditional 3-month intervals.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

he still doesn't address the ACTUAL transcript of what was said.

 

I like how you're avoiding the answer because your quick Google search looking for a defense of Bernie melting down led you to C&P a moronic far-left hack's inept defense of him.

 

- Doesn't know if the Fed itself has the power to break up the banks, doesn't know relevant case law, doesn't know how to prevent unintended harm by breaking up the banks and leaves it up to them.

 

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: 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: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

 

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh by the way...............I already you TRYING to point out other parts of the NY Daily News interview and move away from your original criticism.

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

I like how you're avoiding the answer because your quick Google search looking for a defense of Bernie melting down led you to C&P a moronic far-left hack's inept defense of him.

 

- Doesn't know if the Fed itself has the power to break up the banks, doesn't know relevant case law, doesn't know how to prevent unintended harm by breaking up the banks and leaves it up to them.

 

 

:lawl::lawl:You're now trying to move the goalposts

 

 

Let's take a look at your original criticism:

 

5 hours ago, Saucer said:

 

Bernie's such a policy lightweight that melted when he was grilled by the NYPost's editorial board. He couldn't even explain how he'd break up the banks despite it being one of his main planks and having 50 years to come up with an answer.

 

He's also not a street fighter. Look at how meek he was against Hillary. Compare that to Heels Up Harris during the recent Senate hearings.

 

And unlike Millennials who've been fed a whitewashed version of the Cold War by the academic left, Silents, Boomers, and Gen Xers lived through the Cold War, and they vote in a much higher percentage than the Millennials. We have Bernie on tape and in print praising  the the most murderous political ideology of all time. "The Soviet system is so much better than the West's and oh vey aren't those Sandinistas great?"

 

Good luck, comrade.

 

And you began posting other parts of the interview of the NY Daily News asking Bernie about whether he knows the legal consequences...........which isn't what your criticism was about.

 

Bernie did explain how he'd break up the banks.

 

And considering the risks of what happens in a too-big-to-fail situation, any fears about "unknown legal consequences" pales in comparison to a economic crash. They would be broken down systematically.

 

We've had laws that limited banks before, as recently as the 1980's.

 

Nice try, but no cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Bernie did explain how he'd break up the banks.

 

"I don't know the case law, but if I can break them up, I'll leave the details up to the banks."

 

He's a perfect candidate for you, Jer. A know-nothing grifter communinst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

"I don't know the case law, but if I can break them up, I'll leave the details up to the banks."

 

He's a perfect candidate for you, Jer. A know-nothing grifter communinst.

Case law is a different subject that "who has the authority to break up banks"

 

Bernie answered that question perfectly.............because its the same exact position as Hillary Clinton. Unless you're also saying that Hillary Clinton doesn't know anything, either, back in 2016.

 

Swing and a miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×