|
axeil posted:
In the general, yeah.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
we didn't start the fire
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
and for axeil's next trick, accusing bernie supporters of being racist by the utterly transparent non-argument of saying that appealing to economic concerns that disproportionally affect minorities is racsexist
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:[citation needed]. hillary was very popular with democrats and hated by the gop. no proof that the same wouldn't have happened to bernie in a GE scenario. "Would Bernie have won?" is the most important question the party can be asking itself right now. Because the party has to make a choice if they want to stick with the same poo poo that lost them the presidency and over 900 legislative seats across the country, or try the new option of the Bernie wing. So shut the gently caress up, your time is over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
#theresistance https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/822431556392325120
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
blue squares posted:"Would Bernie have won?" is the most important question the party can be asking itself right now. Because the party has to make a choice if they want to stick with the same poo poo that lost them the presidency and over 900 legislative seats across the country, or try the new option of the Bernie wing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:[citation needed]. hillary was very popular with democrats and hated by the gop. no proof that the same wouldn't have happened to bernie in a GE scenario. Hillary was also hated by Independents. They loved Bernie. This is basic poo poo. But mostly I'm responding to this post for this part quote:but sure, let's just keep re-fighting the primary. that's a great use of our time. bernie lost. hillary lost. it's over. Dude, you came into this thread specifically to re-fight the primary. Why is your re-fighting the only good re-fighting? (it's because you're re-fighting in Hillary's favor) The Nastier Nate posted:We all know Bernie would have held PA, WI and MI, but what states might have Bernie done worse than Hillary in? He might have lost Nevada, and maaaaybe Virginia in a stretch, but that's it as far as I can tell. I guess what I'm saying is, Bernie would have won. Reminder that someone unironically argued ITT that Bernie would have done worse than Hillary in states she won in the primary, like California and New York, as though that loving matters in the slightest mormonpartyboat posted:i truly believe america woudl ahve aggreeed that the best way to deal with russian involvement in syria is to repeal citizens united Unironically this. People who are not D&D posters care way more about their own wallets and their own political rights than Russian involvement in Syria. This isn't complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration? are you going to make accusatory remarks at BLM for being at the inauguration? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration? What's Hillary's?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration? Skipping it won't prevent Trump from becoming president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration? because he's not a pedantic shithead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:i truly believe america woudl ahve aggreeed that the best way to deal with russian involvement in syria is to repeal citizens united america, by a wide majority, wants greater cooperation with russia in syria. you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:america, by a wide majority, wants greater cooperation with russia in syria. you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration? no one from the senate is skipping out for some reason i'm not sure of. everyone ditching has been in the house
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:What is Bernie's pained logic for being at the inauguration? He's giving him a chance. quote:Sanders said he and other progressives will work with Trump “to the degree that [he] is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump_us_5823b640e4b0e80b02cec30b He's been talking policy since the election, not Russian hacking pee parties making Trump illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Skipping it won't prevent Trump from becoming president. Okay, so the people that are skipping it are just idiots then and their protest means nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:america, by a wide majority, wants greater cooperation with russia in syria. you're an idiot. Well I guess that's the second most damning example of democracy's failure that's been brought up today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:Okay, so the people that are skipping it are just idiots then and their protest means nothing? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:Okay, so the people that are skipping it are just idiots then and their protest means nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
bernie should join j20 but entertaining any fantasy of that is just as bad as expecting hillary to join the women's march
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
*stays out of trump inauguration* *2 months later signs off on more gently caress-the-poor austerity because all loyal democrats must reach across the aisle*
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:Okay, so the people that are skipping it are just idiots then and their protest means nothing? They're not necessarily idiots, but the protest certainly doesn't mean anything I know I'm not watching it and I wouldn't show up either if I were them but it's not really Sticking It To Trump at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Hey everybody, long time listener first time caller. Yeah, I just wanted to say that, y'know, in direct response to whatever that earlier dingbat was saying...uh, well, I mean Bernie would have won. That's all I've got, thanks for listening, love the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Nice revisionist history. i'll illustrate why i bring this up with an example. during the first debate hillary said the greatest threat to the banking system was shadow banking. this is the system by which non-bank entities act as banks and is absurdly risky and dangerous to our economic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system wikipedia posted:Shadow banking has grown in importance to rival traditional depository banking, and was a primary factor in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 and the global recession that followed.[3][4][5] Valerio Lemma, an associate professor of Banking Law who consults on regulatory compliance, argues that the lack of regulatory supervision of the shadow banking system is a market failure.[6] bernie didn't even know what it was and instead talked about bringing back glass-steagal which would have had minimal impact on even preventing the 08 crisis much less stopping future ones. this was a repeated problem with his campaign as people would ask questions like "how would we pay for this/what would be the impacts" and the response was a shrug. the bernie wing (for lack of a better term) is all stuff that sounds good optically but might not actually do anything ala his comments on glass-steagal. unfortunately the hillary wing won't focus enough on the need for people to, ya know, like the candidate and/or the policy even if the stuff they propose sounds good, ala her comments on shadow banking. or worse, they come up with stuff that is effective but doesn't really generate any enthusiasm in either direction. i'd prefer something that actually worked instead of something giving me good feelings and ultimately changing nothing. but if the best policy in the world is proposed by satan it doesn't matter, because no one will vote for it. the stances of the candidates from last year doesn't matter anymore but it appears the party direction is coalescing around these two points as a matter of speech. i only bring up the primary as an example of what i'm talking about. what i'm hoping is that as the party moves forward i hope they commit to doing things that are actually meaningful rather than doing whatever makes leftist twitter or tumblr or w/e happy but ultimately not changing anything. even if i don't like what they propose, i hope they propose stuff that actually changes things rather than just chasing whatever feels good. raging against the heavens and accomplishing no policy changes doesn't do anyone any good, except feeding the ego of the people raging at the heavens. tl;dr: both "wings" of the party need to ensure that whatever they do in the next 2 years, they're proposing effective policy that is well thought out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Well I guess that's the second most damning example of democracy's failure that's been brought up today. it's hosed up people don't think the way i want them to think
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
axeil posted:shadow banking stuff bernie's comments make more sense when you realize that his positions had nothing to do with preventing risk on wall street and everything to do with pursuing the ideological goal of breaking their political power
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
I remember shadow banking as that thing HRC deflected to constantly whenever anyone asked her if she thinks the big banks should be broken up or bankers should have been prosecuted in 2009. I wasn't impressed then and I'm not impressed now that the same poo poo is being C&Ped at me by a guy with an Eagles avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I remember shadow banking as that thing HRC deflected to constantly whenever anyone asked her if she thinks the big banks should be broken up or bankers should have been prosecuted in 2009. I wasn't impressed then and I'm not impressed now that the same poo poo is being C&Ped at me by a guy with an Eagles avatar. she did that to my face lol. she also deflected to obama taking wall street money when that subject came up
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShopFloorNAM/status/822451875635142656
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:bernie's comments make more sense when you realize that his positions had nothing to do with preventing risk on wall street and everything to do with pursuing the ideological goal of breaking their political power but re-separating commercial and investment banking wouldn't do that either. if anything it would end up creating more financial entities and the investment entities would be even riskier than a megabank is today. probably the most effective strategy for de-risking the whole system is implementing some form of shadow banking regulation, requiring much larger capital reserves, and capping the overall size of a financial institution at some percent of total financial system assets to prevent too big to fail. "breaking their political power" would be a long and arduous process and probably take numerous years and require a lot of other things i'm not even considering here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
can you just leap off whatever financial institution you work for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
axeil posted:this was a repeated problem with his campaign as people would ask questions like "how would we pay for this/what would be the impacts" and the response was a shrug. Yes, but the winner of the election was Donald Trump so that doesn't sound like much of a problem with this general electorate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
axeil posted:but re-separating commercial and investment banking wouldn't do that either. if anything it would end up creating more financial entities and the investment entities would be even riskier than a megabank is today. and you haven't picked up your burger yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:can you just leap off whatever financial institution you work for? a "kill yourself" post. nice. i can make condescending posts too! can you go get a job? Anime Schoolgirl posted:so how would this help the common man in ways other than "being a circle jerk of money exchange among elites" -shadow banking regulation prevents "secret" banks from existing that are unseen by regulators. if you can't see the financial activity you can't do anything to prevent it from randomly taking out institutions and leaving people jobless/homeless/etc or causing contagion -more capital means the bank has more emergency reserves to burn through when times are bad and this works in conjunction with -size regulations stop too big to fail as there wouldn't be any institutions left that are "systemically important" except for maybe processing shops but those are a different thing when you don't have the volatility and consolidation in the system you don't have to worry about banks going down and taking people's savings with them. once you have those patches you can do a lot more like: -expanding access to government programs for low/no credit borrowers or low income borrowers -reforming the entire student loan system to not be absolutely insane for all parties borrowers and lenders alike -forcing all lenders to consider loan modifications before foreclosure actions can be taken -end credit checks as something an employer can ask for to give you a job -etc this is just me thinking off the top of my head and there's no reason you couldn't do all these at once axeil has issued a correction as of 17:02 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:it's hosed up people don't think the way i want them to think You do realize Russia is basically responsible for most of Syria's bullshit, right? They're basically Assad's sugar daddy at this point. zegermans posted:There is literally only one candidate worth supporting in any political race in the country, and I discovered that he exists 1.5 years ago. His name is Bernie Sanders, and he would have won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
There is literally only one candidate worth supporting in any political race in the country, and I discovered that he exists 1.5 years ago. His name is Bernie Sanders, and he would have won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:You do realize Russia is basically responsible for all Syria bullshit, right? They're basically Assad's sugar daddy at this point. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
zegermans posted:There is literally only one candidate worth supporting in any political race in the country, and I discovered that he exists 1.5 years ago. His name is Bernie Sanders, and he would have won. I think you should give her your computer forever
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:CC isn't really that bad. It's just that a lot of ill will in C-SPAM festered until election night, and when it blew most other pro-Hillary posters were either banned or had fled to USPOL (and poo poo it up so bad that it exploded into 5 threads lmao). Yeah CC is a party insider but at least a little bit woke, I see axeil has been jockeying for a position on the list
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 17:00
|
|
