Bernie is as empty as Trump (1 Viewer)

[Crovax]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/

"It’s something I have not studied"

"Well, again, you’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer"

"I don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions"

"I don’t know the answer to that"

"Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot"

TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

 

[tessaesque]

I really wonder sometimes if people in other countries are sitting around eating popcorn and watching us salivate over these buffoons.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I really wonder sometimes if people in other countries are sitting around eating popcorn and watching us salivate over these buffoons.

I guarantee you the only buffoons most outsiders see is Cruz and Trump...

Ones a madman and the other wants to march the country back into the Dark Ages.

But since 08, I've learned ALOT, I have an Australian coworker who really likes Bernie and is following the election, but as I have since learned the ultimate problem with this whole thing is that people keep looking to the executive to solve everything, partially because psychologically it's easier to project and direct the nations problems on one person than it is on congress.

And congress is actually the one that can and should fix everything... But the way things have gone it's become paralyzed and ineffective and entirely corrupt.

So I say to my Aussie friend, elect Bernie all you want, if congress remains Republican, ain't nothing getting done.

At that point it's the same with Trump, only difference is, the United States military in his hands is simply too dangerous to consider.

Yeah, conservatives aren't gonna like Bernie, he's a Dem Socialist and the word socialist has become synonymous with all forms of bad, warranted or unwarranted.

But outside the Extreme Conservative Bizzaro Universe, Hillary and Kasich keep the ship steady, and Bernie is a nice thought, but even if elected would be entirely ineffective because of what Congress has become.

 

[joG]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/



TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

BS isn't so much empty as full of it.

 

[Quag]

I really wonder sometimes if people in other countries are sitting around eating popcorn and watching us salivate over these buffoons.

Yes, yes we are

 

[PoS]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/



TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

In the end it doesnt matter who you vote for, they are all the same...

 

[VanceMack]

Who cares, man...he is going to give us free ****!

Why should we expect any more of our candidates?

 

[Ikari]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/



TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

What candidate has given us anything other than talking points? Which one? Who has a plan laid out for how they are accomplishing their goals? This is standard Republocrat campaigning. No one says anything about how, they just run their mouths about their stump speeches and talking points and that's it. It's not just Bernie or Trump.

 

[bubbabgone]

Here's an observation, neither Bernie nor Trump are chock full of the information you and I are used to hearing from others in their positions ... and it surely is uncomfortable to have to listen to their dead air ... but there is that other spectacle of the elites in both major parties doing their damnedest to retain their own power by shutting out interlopers.
That's got to make you feel pretty uncomfortable too.
But would it be easier for a person to learn information than for a person to learn to live without power they're used to exercising.

 

[X Factor]

I really wonder sometimes if people in other countries are sitting around eating popcorn and watching us salivate over these buffoons.

Maybe, but who cares? Let them worry about their own politics. Bet we wouldn't have to dig much in other closets to find some interesting skeletons in compromising positions.

Good to "see" you, btw.

 

[X Factor]

Here's an observation, neither Bernie nor Trump are chock full of the information you and I are used to hearing from others in their positions ... and it surely is uncomfortable to have to listen to their dead air ... but there is that other spectacle of the elites in both major parties doing their damnedest to retain their own power by shutting out interlopers. That's got to make you feel pretty uncomfortable too.
But would it be easier for a person to learn information than for a person to learn to live without power they're used to exercising.

I wouldn't call it uncomfortable, but this election has certainly been an eye opener for me. I've always been something of a GOP apologist, but when I heard Mitt Romney lament about how news and information is not restricted to the three networks any more, it showed me that the old power structure in the GOP was just content to be the ineffectual party and happy to blame their shortcomings on the press or whatever. Now that we're starting to wake up to that and actually expect something of those we elect, all hell is breaking loose. I think the shake up has been good for American politics. The old way of doing things can't die a quick enough death.

 

[bubbabgone]

I wouldn't call it uncomfortable, but this election has certainly been an eye opener for me. I've always been something of a GOP apologist, but when I heard Mitt Romney lament about how news and information is not restricted to the three networks any more, it showed me that the old power structure in the GOP was just content to be the ineffectual party and happy to blame their shortcomings on the press or whatever. Now that we're starting to wake up to that and actually expect something of those we elect, all hell is breaking loose. I think the shake up has been good for American politics. The old way of doing things can't die a quick enough death.

That's as good an explanation as any others I've heard.
Someone else somewhere said it's almost like both major Parties acknowledge there will be exchanges of power every 8 years or so without saying it out loud but accept it in order to maintain their power while they wait for their next turn.
I don't expect it's that conscious but it's pretty obvious political Parties are sustaining themselves as though it is.
And Mitt Romney allowing himself, wittingly or otherwise, to be used in that regard the way he has been recently is an embarrassment.

 

[X Factor]

What candidate has given us anything other than talking points? Which one? Who has a plan laid out for how they are accomplishing their goals? This is standard Republocrat campaigning. No one says anything about how, they just run their mouths about their stump speeches and talking points and that's it. It's not just Bernie or Trump.

Except Cruz. I believe he means what he says and I believe that's what makes him so scary to some. If folks thought he was just sounding off, I doubt they'd freak out about him. Someone very wise has said that the "the left will tell you who they fear" and I'll make my own amendment to that to say that everyone, regardless of lean, will tell who they fear. Many on the right feared Obama, clearly. I fear Sanders to an extent and saying something like, "hey, we already have socialist policies" by way of trying to make me comfortable with more socialism does not help.

 

[X Factor]

That's as good an explanation as any others I've heard.
Someone else somewhere said it's almost like both major Parties acknowledge there will be exchanges of power every 8 years or so without saying it out loud but accept it in order to maintain their power while they wait for their next turn.
I don't expect it's that conscious but it's pretty obvious political Parties are sustaining themselves as though it is.
And Mitt Romney allowing himself, wittingly or otherwise, to be used in that regard the way he has been recently is an embarrassment.

That sounds entirely plausible and would almost explain why it seems like the Dems kinda half-assed it this year in terms of actual choice.

 

[Ntharotep]

Out of context quotes are out of context.
Sanders has experience and his state was actually pretty happy with him.
Trump has no experience in politics or as a human being.

 

[Ntharotep]

^^ Meant the OP not the Article itself.
I would say the difference is that Sanders at least tried to answer the questions asked (if doing a terrible job of it in some instances) whereas Trump just says "Good Leader, Yo."

 

[tessaesque]

Maybe, but who cares? Let them worry about their own politics. Bet we wouldn't have to dig much in other closets to find some interesting skeletons in compromising positions.

Good to "see" you, btw.

Well hey there!

 

[Crovax]

Out of context quotes are out of context.
Sanders has experience and his state was actually pretty happy with him.
Trump has no experience in politics or as a human being.

The context of the quotes was too long and I thought would violate the fair use policy. I figured the quotes would be intriguing enough for people to read the article and get the context.

The point is Sanders main issue is breaking up the banks and he has no clue what law he would use to do it and no mechanism to do it with. He claimed the president couldn't do it because that would be a dictator but then said an unelected secretary of the treasury would have the power, how is that not the same thing? Not to mention he couldn't even name that statute under which he would charge the bankers. Not only that but he claimed that it was the amount of money they paid in fines which made it the crime eligible to be prosecuted. Despite Sanders experience he has as little planning as Trump on how to carry out his policies. Even Cruz who has crazy positions and unrealistic expectations at least has a plan to carry out his policies. They would never happen but he atleast he knows how he could do it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Out of context quotes are out of context.
Sanders has experience and his state was actually pretty happy with him.
Trump has no experience in politics or as a human being.

Vermont is not mainstream America by any stretch.

 

[reinoe]

Vermont is not mainstream America by any stretch.

No state really is...

 

[Surrealistik]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/



TBH I had never really heard Bernie outside of a democratic debate. I disagreed with his politics but I thought he was genuine... I was wrong.

Hes pretty much a one issue candidate and he doesnt even have a clue about that one issue. I would ask how in the world could someone believe in a guy who has all rhetoric and no plans but Trump has answered that question quite thoroughly. Bernie is the democrat version of Trump, no hes no as outrageous but he just as empty. Hes going to break up the banks and throw the CEO's in jail but he doesnt have a ****ing clue how hes going to do it. He might as well promise a wall that mexcio will pay for while he is at it.

It was a hatchet job replete with gotcha questions, most of which are inapplicable to the fundamental tenants of his campaign, or are inconsequential; for starters, like the precise geography of ISIS interrogations, or the MetLife verdict which is actually pretty inapplicable given it's a non-banking institution and spun off the operations which largely brought it to the attention of regulators.

An excellent summary of what actually happened with that interview:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...-bernie-sanders-w-44-a-12.html#post1065743804

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7dVCf6k_MQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB6gq-NO0_0

 

[Crovax]

It was a hatchet job replete with gotcha questions, most of which are inapplicable to the fundamental tenants of his campaign, or are inconsequential; for starters, like the precise geography of ISIS interrogations, or the MetLife verdict which is actually pretty inapplicable given it's a non-banking institution and spun off the operations which largely brought it to the attention of regulators.

An excellent summary of what actually happened with that interview:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...-bernie-sanders-w-44-a-12.html#post1065743804

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7dVCf6k_MQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB6gq-NO0_0

"How do you go about doing [breaking up the banks]?"

"But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?"

"President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he’s got the right policy there?"

those are not gotcha questions they are core to Bernie's campaign an he doesnt have a ****ing clue about the answers to them

 

[Surrealistik]

"How do you go about doing [breaking up the banks]?"

"But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?"

"President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he’s got the right policy there?"

those are not gotcha questions they are core to Bernie's campaign an he doesnt have a ****ing clue about the answers to them

With regards to the first question, Bernie was making the very obvious point that executive power to break up the banks stems from federal legislation, citing Dodd Frank as an instance of the government's powers of compulsion over the industry.

As for the second, I don't think it's reasonable to fault Bernie for admitting ignorance to specific statutes under which he would prosecute. It might be tempting to throw out something general like 'securities fraud', but he was asked for specifics, and further, pressing criminal charges was never a part of his platform/campaign which probably explains why he doesn't have those specifics memorized.

The third question is outright and unambiguously a gotcha question: it does not actually speak to the core of his campaign and requires inside intelligence, such as the kind Obama as POTUS and not Bernie would have, in order to arrive at a meaningful answer.


Again, consult the links I've provided which address all of these things. If you like, you can skip the first video which defines a gotcha question in the event it's unclear.

 

[Crovax]

With regards to the first question, Bernie was making the very obvious point that executive power to break up the banks stems from federal legislation, citing Dodd Frank as an instance of the government's powers of compulsion over the industry.

As for the second, I don't think it's reasonable to fault Bernie for admitting ignorance to specific statutes under which he would prosecute. It might be tempting to throw out something general like 'securities fraud', but he was asked for specifics, and further, pressing criminal charges was never a part of his platform/campaign which probably explains why he doesn't have those specifics memorized.

The third question is outright and unambiguously a gotcha question: it does not actually speak to the core of his campaign and requires inside intelligence, such as the kind Obama as POTUS and not Bernie would have, in order to arrive at a meaningful answer.


Again, consult the links I've provided which address all of these things. If you like, you can skip the first video which defines a gotcha question in the event it's unclear.

Bernie has talke about putting the bankers in jail thousands of times, yes he shoul know what they have done that is illegal. And saying dodd-frank as a way to break up the banks is like saying 9/11 as why we need more defense spending. Not to mention the met-life case is very central to the banks as AIG was a major accomplice in the practices that lead to the financial collapse. Bernie is an absolute moron when it comes to actually knowing the issues.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie has talke about putting the bankers in jail thousands of times, yes he shoul know what they have done that is illegal.

Again, securities fraud is the obvious response but identifying particular statues is completely different; I don't think expecting him to know the particulars when criminal prosecutions of these bankers is _not_ actually part of his campaign is perfectly reasonable. Hell, the statute of limitations straight up prevents any kind of prosecution; given that this makes it a non-issue, and again, that this was not an aspect or dimension of his campaign, it is utterly silly to breathe down Bernie's neck over this.

And saying dodd-frank as a way to break up the banks is like saying 9/11 as why we need more defense spending. Not to mention the met-life case is very central to the banks as AIG was a major accomplice in the practices that lead to the financial collapse. Bernie is an absolute moron when it comes to actually knowing the issues.

Again, he was making the very basic and obvious point that executive power is a function of legislation, with Dodd Frank being cited as an example of legislation with powers of compulsion over the financial industry; he did _not_ answer that this was specifically a means of breaking up the banks.