NationStates

USS Monitor wrote:

Arumdaum wrote:Not yet; I will not be flaunting my white privilege until mid-May.

Must be tough watching people in other states get their privilege, and then you have to wait...

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:The whole primary system is just ridiculously fucked.

I think we need massive reform of the primary system.

We need reforms for lots of things

The Romulan Republic wrote:The whole primary system is just ridiculously fucked.

I think we need massive reform of the primary system.

Guy wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:The whole primary system is just ridiculously fucked.

I think we need massive reform of the primary system.

I think the Democrats just need to move to statewide proportional votes, and move to consolidate primary dates. Getting rid of caucuses would be good, too - just statewide delegate slates put up by the candidates. The organisational arm of the state parties can be left to caucuses.

The Romulan Republic wrote:A twelve point win is not a fucking loss. That is flagrant dishonesty. Or stupidity. Take your pick.

Guy wrote:Since you like honesty (as you said above), and yo have no issue insinuating other people are being deceptive or stupid: You're a moron.

Major-Tom wrote:

Geilinor wrote:Talk about the reach, Bernie. Talk about the reach. Using the Panama Papers to attack Clinton on trade when Panama has been a tax haven for years. We don't even know how many Americans are involved (so far, none that we know of).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/panama-papers-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-221592

Cut the shit, it's a clever strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if the eternally corrupt and dirty Hillary Clinton had used tax havens for years.

Ashmoria wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
Cut the shit, it's a clever strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if the eternally corrupt and dirty Hillary Clinton had used tax havens for years.

that would be impressive considering the enormous income they put on their taxes and pay full freight on.

wow, the first google result says they made $109mill in a 7 year period. are you thinking they really made $200mill in that time?

Corrian wrote:I made the mistake of talking politics with my grandpa He started rambling on for a long time, and not getting how a "socialist" is so popular and telling me to research what "socialism" means. I kinda got SOME of his points but he acts like he could change my mind. Sorry grandpa, I've solidified my opinion a long time ago

He also seemed to try and convince me that going to college now is not much different than when he went....I've seen the numbers......It's gone way up. He entirely ignored me pointing that out. Ah, fun trying to debate in a one sided debate.

But hey, we both dislike Hillary.

Also talked to my neighbor and he reminded us how cool it was that we all were among neighbors at the caucus voting (He voted for Bernie Sanders too), and how my sisters argument there made him happy and think even more about why he was voting the way he was.

Corrian wrote:I made the mistake of talking politics with my grandpa He started rambling on for a long time, and not getting how a "socialist" is so popular and telling me to research what "socialism" means. I kinda got SOME of his points but he acts like he could change my mind. Sorry grandpa, I've solidified my opinion a long time ago

He also seemed to try and convince me that going to college now is not much different than when he went....I've seen the numbers......It's gone way up. He entirely ignored me pointing that out. Ah, fun trying to debate in a one sided debate.

But hey, we both dislike Hillary.

Also talked to my neighbor and he reminded us how cool it was that we all were among neighbors at the caucus voting (He voted for Bernie Sanders too), and how my sisters argument there made him happy and think even more about why he was voting the way he was.

Teemant wrote:

Corrian wrote:I made the mistake of talking politics with my grandpa He started rambling on for a long time, and not getting how a "socialist" is so popular and telling me to research what "socialism" means. I kinda got SOME of his points but he acts like he could change my mind. Sorry grandpa, I've solidified my opinion a long time ago

He also seemed to try and convince me that going to college now is not much different than when he went....I've seen the numbers......It's gone way up. He entirely ignored me pointing that out. Ah, fun trying to debate in a one sided debate.

But hey, we both dislike Hillary.

Also talked to my neighbor and he reminded us how cool it was that we all were among neighbors at the caucus voting (He voted for Bernie Sanders too), and how my sisters argument there made him happy and think even more about why he was voting the way he was.

Can someone clarify me one thing when talking about colleges in America. Are public colleges too expensive or are people complaining that best private colleges are expensive?

Thermodolia wrote:

Teemant wrote:
Can someone clarify me one thing when talking about colleges in America. Are public colleges too expensive or are people complaining that best private colleges are expensive?

All colleges are too expensive. Both public and private, last time I checked it costs about 30K to go to Your average public college and 60K for private ones.

Teemant wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:All colleges are too expensive. Both public and private, last time I checked it costs about 30K to go to Your average public college and 60K for private ones.

But I mean people who complain that they have hundreds of thousands of student debt clearly didn't learn in public college. When Bernie Sanders talks about free college and everything I belive like some of his voters really think that private colleges (well known names) will become cheaper.

United Dependencies wrote:Bernie Sanders recently sat down with the editorial board of the NY Daily News. Here is the transcript of that interview. It's a long one but I think it's a pretty good read.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tran ... -1.2588306

Thoughts?

My thoughts: I believe this interview continues to show that while Bernie is someone who is concerned about the greed and destructiveness of corporate America, he seems to have no idea how his administration would be approaching those issues. While it's certainly ok for a presidential candidate not to have their policies all planned, you need to at least be able to identify mechanisms that you would be working. I get that reaction from here:

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?
Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

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.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.
Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.

You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. Alright? It would be fair for you to say, "Well, Bernie, you got on there that you are strongly concerned about climate change and that we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. What happens to the people in the fossil fuel industry?"

That's a fair question. But the other part of that is if we do not address that issue the planet we’re gonna leave your kids and your grandchildren may not be a particularly healthy or habitable one. So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

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...

and here

Daily News: Okay. Staying with Wall Street, you've pointed out, that "not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy." Why was that? Why did that happen? Why was there no prosecution?

Sanders: I would suspect that the answer that some would give you is that while what they did was horrific, and greedy and had a huge impact on our economy, that some suggest that...that those activities were not illegal. I disagree. And I think an aggressive attorney general would have found illegal activity.

Daily News: So do you think that President Obama's Justice Department essentially was either in the tank or not as...

Sanders: No, I wouldn’t say they were in the tank. I'm saying, a Sanders administration would have a much more aggressive attorney general looking at all of the legal implications. All I can tell you is that if you have Goldman Sachs paying a settlement fee of $5 billion, other banks paying a larger fee, I think most Americans think, "Well, why do they pay $5 billion?" Not because they're heck of a nice guys who want to pay $5 billion. Something was wrong there. And if something was wrong, I think they were illegal activities.

Daily News: Okay. 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?

Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

Kelinfort wrote:i'm kinda surprised that Hillary hasn't pulled up some of Sander's past comments against him. I mean, I'm glad this race hasn't gone negative. But the fact he said, "I don't believe in charity," could be a problem. I know Cruz or Trump will use it in the general for sure.

Daily News: I know you've got to go in a second. When was the last time you rode the subway? Are you gonna a campaign in the subway?

Sanders: Actually we rode the subway, Mike, when we were here? About a year ago? But I know how to ride the subways. I’ve been on them once or twice.

Daily News: Do you really? Do you really? How do you ride the subway today?

Sanders: What do you mean, "How do you ride the subway?"

Daily News: How do you get on the subway today?

Sanders: You get a token and you get in.

Daily News: Wrong.

Sanders: You jump over the turnstile.

Daily News: We would like our photographer to be there when you jump over the turnstile.

United Dependencies wrote:I don't know if this exchange was serious or not, but it's pretty funny either way:

Daily News: I know you've got to go in a second. When was the last time you rode the subway? Are you gonna a campaign in the subway?

Sanders: Actually we rode the subway, Mike, when we were here? About a year ago? But I know how to ride the subways. I’ve been on them once or twice.

Daily News: Do you really? Do you really? How do you ride the subway today?

Sanders: What do you mean, "How do you ride the subway?"

Daily News: How do you get on the subway today?

Sanders: You get a token and you get in.

Daily News: Wrong.

Sanders: You jump over the turnstile.

Daily News: We would like our photographer to be there when you jump over the turnstile.

Ashmoria wrote:its obvious (to me) that she is trying very hard to keep the personal attacks to the minimum, relying on her organization to get her the votes she needs for the nomination. she is going to need the Bernie voters so it would be very risky to go scorched earth on him.

Corrian wrote:You know, I'm not even remotely a pro gun person, and if anything I may be closer to anti gun, and I still think Hillary Clinton's stance on gun control is stupid. Why should gun manufacturers be held accountable for selling guns to someone who uses them for the wrong reasons? I can seeing them holding the person accountable who may have SOLD the gun to the person if they had a history of issues, but the gun manufacturers? Why?

Also, now she seems to be giving false information on how the "Guns in New York" mostly come from Vermont (Trying to discredit him in New York)

And I also saw a poll earlier that had him within 10% in New York, though I still don't know what polls are reliable and which aren't.

Teemant wrote:But I mean people who complain that they have hundreds of thousands of student debt clearly didn't learn in public college. When Bernie Sanders talks about free college and everything I belive like some of his voters really think that private colleges (well known names) will become cheaper.

Thermodolia wrote:

Teemant wrote:
Can someone clarify me one thing when talking about colleges in America. Are public colleges too expensive or are people complaining that best private colleges are expensive?

All colleges are too expensive. Both public and private, last time I checked it costs about 30K to go to Your average public college and 60K for private ones.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Teemant wrote:But I mean people who complain that they have hundreds of thousands of student debt clearly didn't learn in public college. When Bernie Sanders talks about free college and everything I belive like some of his voters really think that private colleges (well known names) will become cheaper.

Without room and board, four years at my local public uni is 34,000 for in state residents or 82,000 out of state. Add in room and board and it ends up 62,000 and 110,000. And I don't exactly live in an expensive part of the country. At my state's public uni, 44,000 in-state residents or 128,000 out of state, without room and board or transportation.

It's really not that hard to rack up student debt.